annual report 2009 · municipalities, succeeded in establishing enough places in reception centres...

Annual report 2009Facts and figures

EN

GL

ISH

‘We will reduce case processing times’ I will remember 2009 as the year when we, in cooperation with the municipalities, succeeded in establishing enough places in reception centres for the many asylum seekers who arrived. At the same time, we processed a record-high number of applications, but failed to reach our goal of reducing case processing times. That will be our main priority in 2010.

In 2009, 17,200 people applied for asy-lum in Norway. The number of asylum seekers increased by 160 per cent in two years. In contrast to the record year 2002, the majority came from countries ridden by war and conflict.

This marked increase has been a great challenge for the Directorate of Immi-gration (UDI). We had to increase case processing capacity quickly in order to process all the applications while at the same time ensuring that everyone had a roof over their heads. We achieved the latter but started 2010 with a large number of unprocessed asylum cases.

Asylum cases often receive at lot of atten-tion in the media, but for the UDI, other cases account for the greatest volume. In 2009, we made 85,000 decisions in residence cases. Residence cases include applications for family immigration, work permits, study permits, citizenship etc.

The UDI has never made as many deci-sions as in 2009. However, the case processing time is too long in many cases. We understand that it is difficult for applicants to accept that they have to wait a long time, for example to be reunited with a family member. That is why our primary goal for the coming year is to reduce case processing times.

In order to achieve this, we are now mak-ing radical changes to the way we work and to how we are organised. The most important change is the introduction of fully electronic case processing in the whole immigration administration. Enor-mous amounts of paper will be replaced by a joint electronic archive in 2010. To-wards the end of the year, we will intro-duce solutions for online application for all types of cases. This is a giant step to-wards a more modern and user-friendly immigration administration. I hope and believe that our users will find contact

with the UDI to be a more positive expe-rience already in 2010.

There is great interest in our field, and the UDI has an important job to do in relation to the public debate on immi-gration. We must ensure that the debate is based on solid facts, not myths and prejudice. That requires clearer commu-nication on our part, and we must share more of our knowledge and become more open and accessible.

If you want to know more about what is happening in the UDI, go to www.udi.no or follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/IdaBorresen.

Ida Børresen Director General

1T H E D I R E C T O R AT E O F I M M I G R AT I O N – A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 9

2 T H E D I R E C T O R AT E O F I M M I G R AT I O N – A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 9

The UDI’s role: 4

The UDI’s mission. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The UDI’s partners . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Norway’s immigration policy in a European perspective . . . . . . 8

Migration to Norway . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Asylum and reception centres: 12

More asylum seekers . . . . . . . . . . 13

Identity in asylum cases . . . . . . . . 15

FOCUS ON: Year of the kite runners. . . . . . . . . 16

The asylum process . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Asylum decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Cooperation under the Dublin Regulation . . . . . . . . . . 22

FOCUS ON: More restrictive asylum and refugee policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Many new asylum reception centres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Asylum reception centres in Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

FOCUS ON: Life at an asylum reception centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

More people returned voluntarily. . 28

UDI 2010

Design and production: 07 Gruppen AS

Photo: Sigurd Fandango page 18 (Bjørnebekk reception centre) and page 24. Øyvind Hagen/Statoil page 34. Others: the UDI

Print-run: 750

www.udi.no/annualreport2009


Work and residence: 30

Easier for labour immigrants. . . . . 31

FOCUS ON: The financial crisis affected labour immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Fewer tourist visas . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Fewer people follow their family . . 36

The number of foreign students steadily increasing . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Who comes to Norway – and why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

New citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Expulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

FOCUS ON: Human trafficking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Organisation and priorities: 46

Case processing times too long . . 47

FOCUS ON: Electronic solutions mean better service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

High level of expertise, diversity and growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

The UDI’s management . . . . . . . . 52

More asylum seekers resulted in a larger budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Prioritisation of resources. . . . . . . 56

New Immigration Act simplifies and tightens the rules . . . . . . . . . . 58

Statistics: 60


The UDI’s mission The UDI is tasked with facilitating lawful and desirable immigration and ensuring that those who meet the requirements are given an opportunity to come to Norway. At the same time, however, we have a control function and must prevent system abuse.

We process applications for asylum, vi-sas, family immigration, work and study permits, citizenship, permanent resi-dence permits (settlement permits) and

travel documents. We also make deci-sions on rejection and expulsion. In ad-dition, we are responsible for ensuring that all asylum seekers are offered some-

where to live while they wait for us to process their applications, and for find-ing good solutions for those who wish to return to their home countries.

An average week at the UDI

Many people are affected by the UDI’s work, and applicants, employers, journalists and others all contact us for information about the regulations or individual cases.

An average week in the UDI in 2009 was as follows:

www.udi.no and 2,800 to www.udiregelverk.no

This is the UDI 2009

Asylum applied for asylum in Norway in 2009. This is the second highest number ever.

Reception of places was 22,700.

Return

1,020 asylum seekers returned voluntarily to their home countries after their asylum applications were rejected. Six hundred of them lived in asylum reception centres. In addition, 3,340 persons were forcibly returned by the police to their home countries or another Dublin country, and, of these, 1,330 were escorted out of the country from a reception centre.

Work permits (including EEA permits)

the immigration administration, and most applications were processed by the police. Since October, most EEA nationals have been able to work in Norway without having to apply for a residence permit. They only need to register with the police.

Family immigration We made 21,000 decisions in family immigration cases, 10 per cent more than in 2008.

Study permit

Settlement permit We processed 3,400 applications for settlement permits.

Citizenship We made 14,300 decisions in citizenship cases, an increase of six per cent from 2008.

Visas

Most visa applications are processed by the Foreign Service Missions. The UDI processed almost 7,000 visa cases, an increase of 22 per cent compared with 2008.

Expulsion

Rejection of entry 720 persons were rejected, up 33 per cent on the year before.

T H E D I R E C T O R AT E O F I M M I G R AT I O N – A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 9

The UDI’s partnersThe UDI is one of several agencies in the immigration administration. We have different areas of responsibilities and roles, but we also work closely together. The UDI has overriding responsibility, and one of our tasks is to coordinate work in the immigration field.

The Foreign Service Missions (Norwe-gian embassies and consulates) receive several types of applications and process most visa applications. More compli-cated cases are forwarded to the UDI.

The Foreign Service Missions help the UDI to obtain and check information and documents in residence and asylum cases. They also report to the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre (Landinfo) about human rights condi-tions in different countries and take part in the work of returning persons without legal residence in Norway.

The police districts receive and prepare applications for residence and work per-mits, travel documents, settlement per-mits and citizenship. In some types of cases, the police districts can also make decisions if there is no doubt that the conditions are met. Other applications are processed by the UDI. In addition, the police districts can make rejection decisions and open expulsion cases that are forwarded to the UDI for process-ing.

The National Police Immigration Service (PU) registers asylum seekers, looks into matters concerning the travel route stated by the asylum seekers, and clarifies identities. The PU is also respon-sible for escorting persons without legal residence in Norway out of the country. In cases where there are grounds for suspicion of war crimes, or in cases where the person may be a risk to na-tional security, the UDI works closely with the National Criminal Investigation Service (Kripos) and the Police Security Service (PST).

The Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) is an independent, quasi-judicial body that processes appeals against de-cisions made by the UDI. UNE’s decisions guide the UDI in how it practises rules and regulations.

Landinfo is the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre. Landinfo collects and analyses information about social conditions and human rights in countries relevant to the work of the UDI, UNE and the Ministry. Landinfo is an independent expert body, but it is administratively affiliated to the UDI.

The immigration field organi-sed under a new ministry

In 2009, the Ministry of Justice and the Police took over responsibility for refugee and immigration policy. Responsibility for the Norwegian Nationality Act was transferred to the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, while responsibility for labour immigration remained with the Ministry of Labour. The UDI now deals with three ministries.

The Ministry of Justice and the Police directs the UDI and the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) through stat-utes and regulations, and it stipulates requirements concerning priorities and goal achievement through bud-gets and annual letters of allocation. The Ministry does not instruct the UDI in individual cases unless the case concerns fundamental national interests or immigration control con-siderations are involved. However, the Ministry can issue instructions about how laws should be interpret-ed or how discretionary judgment should be exercised, and it can thus influence immigration practices.


The Ministry of Justice and the Police

The Ministry of Labour

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion

Foreign service missions

The Directorate of Integration and Diversity

The Children, Youth and Family Affairs Service

The National Police Immigration Service

27 police districts

political and administrative management

sector management

professional collaboration

The Immigration Appeals Board

The National Police Directorate

The Directorate of Immigration

The Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi) is responsible for the settlement of refugees, follows up the Introduction Act and plays an important role as a driving force and guide in relation to qualifying immigrants for the labour market. IMDi is also the specialist author-ity for interpretation in the public sector.

The Children, Youth and Family Affairs Service (Bufetat) is responsible for pro-viding accommodation and care for un-accompanied minor asylum seekers under the age of 15. Bufetat collaborates with IMDi on settling unaccompanied minor asylum seekers who are granted residence in Norway.

The UDI has the overall responsibility

for coordinating the immigration

administration.

The immigration administration


Norway’s immigration policy in a European perspective Common challenges require joint solutions. The UDI will work more closely with other countries’ immigration authorities and the EU.

Many people wish to come to Europe In 2008, 2.2 million people were grant-ed a first-time residence permit in an EEA country. Of these, 1.8 million moved to work, study or live with family mem-bers, and 70,000 were granted residence in an EEA country after having applied for asylum. The figures for 2009 will not be ready until sometime in 2010, but they will probably be fairly similar.

What about Norway? The 2009 figures for Norway show that 49,400 persons were granted residence permits on the basis of work, studies or family immigration. An additional 5,600 persons were granted residence, either as resettlement refugees or after having applied for asylum.

One in four asylum decisions was a so-called Dublin decision. A Dublin deci-sion means that the asylum seeker was already registered in another European country and that his/her case was to be

processed there. In December, the Insti-tute for Social Research presented a re-port that showed that asylum seekers who come to Norway often learn about the country on the streets of Southern Europe. Norway’s asylum policy was far down the list of reasons why they chose to apply for protection in Norway.

Good opportunities for increased cooperation The challenges relating to migration re-quire European cooperation, and Nor-wegian authorities participate in a number of international immigration forums. Through the Schengen Agree-ment, the UDI works on common border control, for example in relation to visas that are valid for the whole Schengen area. It is important, therefore, that the different countries work closely together and have uniform practices.

The Intergovernmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees (IGC) is a forum for sharing experiences

about how to handle international mi-gration. The General Directors’ Immi-gration Services Conference (GDISC) brings together the directors of immigra-tion services in most European coun-tries. The Nordic directors also meet in the Nordic Immigration Committee (NU), while the Nordic High Level Co-operation Group for Refugee Issues (NSHF) alternates between meetings at ministerial and civil service level.

Joint European asylum system The EU more frequently initiates the deve-lopment of common policies - also in the field of migration. The Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December. One of its objectives is to develop a joint Euro-pean asylum system (CEAS) by 2012. The goal is for all the member states to implement a uniform refugee status that is valid in the whole union. The same applies to asylum seekers who are not granted refugee status but granted resi-dence on humanitarian grounds or other protection.

The Schengen Agreement

France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg in June 1985, as a collaboration outside the EEC.

the participating countries with common border control.

The individual EU countries can choose whether or not to join the agreement.

to prevent undesirable consequences of reduced border control between the countries.


In 2010, the EU will establish a Euro-pean Asylum Support Office (EASO) that can support the member states’ work in this area. Norway has been asked to contribute. Strategy for international work In autumn 2009, the UDI started work on a strategy for its international work. The purpose is to ensure a uniform, cor-rect prioritisation of participation in and organisation of the work, and to take advantage of the opportunity to influence common solutions.

The strategy aims to ensure that Norway meets its international commitments, e.g. through the Schengen Agreement and the Dublin Regulation and ratifica-tion of international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Refugee Convention. The strategy will be adopted in 2010.

The Dublin Regulation

-tion processed, but that applications are only processed in one of these countries.

for asylum, is registered with fingerprints (has been registered for crossing a border illegally), or holds a visa or a residence permit in another country.

borders illegally are registered with fingerprints in the EU’s electronic fingerprint register, Eurodac. When the police fingerprint an asylum seeker in Norway, they automatically check whether the person is registered in Eurodac.

Countries that have signed both the Dublin Regulation and the Schengen Agreement

Countries that participate in cooperation under the Dublin Regulation

Countries outside both agreements


Migration to Norway The population of Norway increased by 59,000 in 2009. Only in 2008 was there a greater increase.

Immigration contributes to increase in the population In 2009, Norway’s population increased by 1.23 per cent, and at the turn of the year, 4,858,000 persons were registered as resident here. The birth surplus ac-counted for 35 per cent of the population growth, while immigration accounted for 65 per cent.

In total, 65,200 new immigrants were reg-istered. Most of them came from Poland, Sweden and Lithuania. Relative growth was highest from Iceland and Eritrea. 8,500 Norwegian citizens moved back to Norway.

However, the real population increase due to international migration was actu-ally lower, since many people also moved from Norway in 2009. In total, almost 38,600 more people moved to the coun-try than from it. If we take into consid-eration who emigrated, we see that ab-solute growth in net migration was high-est from African countries. There was a decline of 17 per cent in net migration from the ten Eastern European coun-tries.

Among Norwegian nationals, 340 more people moved to the country than from it. In addition, the birth surplus led to an increase in the Norwegian population of 20,400 persons.

Developments in the composition of the population In 2009, Statistics Norway (SSB) pre-pared new projections for the future size of the population of Norway, and how it will be composed. How strong an influ-ence migration to and from Norway will have largely depends on the net migra-tion, but also on birth and mortality rates.

In 2009, the percentage of the population that came from immigration backgrounds (immigrants and their Norwegian-born children) was slightly under 11. SSB con-sidered several scenarios for how the composition of the population will de-velop. In the scenario that projects the lowest population growth, nearly 16 per cent of the population will have an immi-grant background in 2025. The scenario projecting the biggest increase suggests that this proportion will be roughly 20 per cent.

Difference in growth from different countries of origin Statistics Norway’s analysis also distin-guishes between the countries that immi-grants will probably come from in future. The analysis indicates that between 345,000 and 487,000 persons will come from countries where it is easy pursuant to the current regulations for citizens to come to Norway to live and work. From countries where citizens must assume that the rules are stricter, the corre-sponding figures are between 482,000 and 726,000. According to the calcula-tions, the two groups will account for 6 and 9 per cent, respectively, of the total Norwegian population in 2025 based on the scenario projecting the lowest popu-lation growth, and 8 and 12 per cent, based on the scenario with the biggest population growth.

Controlling immigration In 2009, the immigration authorities made 55,000 decisions allowing people to move to Norway for the first time and stay here for a prolonged period. The UDI made 53 per cent of these deci-sions.


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

09080706050403020100

All countries

09080706050403020100

Countries outside the EEA

Work permits*

Family immigration

Study permits

Protection

Figure 1. Controlled migration to Norway, development of different types of permits. 2000–2009

The figures do not give a complete picture of the migration to Norway

The statistics for the number of permits issued by the UDI in the course of a year do not give a complete picture of the number of foreign nationals residing in Norway. One reason is that some of the permits are issued to persons who have already been granted residence in Norway, including persons who can be granted a permanent residence permit after three years’ residence. In addition, for more than 50 years, Nordic nation-als have been entitled to live and work

in Norway by simply notifying the pop-ulation register of a change of address. From 2009, other EEA nationals do not need to apply for a permit to live and work here. Due to transitional rules, Bulgarian and Romanian nationals still have to apply for work permits. Non-Nordic nationals have to be registered.

There are also other reasons why the statistics do not give the complete pic-ture. Some foreign nationals hold visas

that were issued in another Schengen country, some choose not to come although they have been issued a per-mit, some return home despite holding permits and some are issued a new permit before their current one expires. Some people also stay in the country illegally. Of these, some come without a valid permit, while some remain in the country after their permit has expired or their application for protection (asy-lum) has been rejected.

* From 1 October 2009, most EEA nationals no longer need to apply for a residence permit.

Fewer permits were issued to EU nation-als than in 2008. This reflects both the fact that we received fewer applications in the first nine months of the year and

that most EEA nationals as of 1 October no longer needed to apply for permits. The work and residence permit schemes for this group were replaced by a regis-

tration requirement. This led to a sharp decline in the number of permits of this type already in 2009.


More asylum seekers For the third year in a row, the number of people seeking asylum in Norway increased. There was particularly a big increase in the number of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers.

Record-high number of asylum seekers In 2009, 17,200 persons applied for asy-lum in Norway. This is the second high-est number ever recorded, only beaten in the record year 2002, when we re-ceived 17,500 asylum applications. The number of asylum applications remained high throughout the year, but with a marked decline in December.

Four big asylum countries The asylum seekers came from 115 countries, but four countries stood out in the statistics. Over half of the asylum seekers came from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia or Iraq. In addition, we received

applications from many stateless per-sons, mainly Palestinians.

What these applicants have in common is that they come from countries affected by war or previous conflicts. The inhabitants of Eritrea continued to flee from an au-thoritarian regime with compulsory na-tional military service of indefinite length for women and men under the age of 50. In Somalia, the war between the transi-tional government and the Islamist oppo-sition flared up again in May, and many civilians fled a very unsafe situation.

Palestinians often gave a number of cir-cumstances as the reason why they ap-plied for protection. The most common-

ly stated reason was the problematic situation following the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah.

In June, the Norwegian authorities started returning Afghan nationals to Kabul and other areas deemed to be stable and se-cure, even though the asylum seekers had no connection to these areas. Following this, the number of asylum seekers from Afghanistan declined every month.

The security situation in Iraq continued to improve in 2009. Following a period of several years in which most applica-tions came from Iraq, the number of asy-lum seekers from Iraq fell by 61 per cent from 2008. The decline was greater in Norway than elsewhere in Europe, which can partly be explained by the restrictive measures implemented by the Govern-ment. There were also fewer asylum seek-ers from Serbia, Sri Lanka and Russia.

Many unaccompanied minor asylum seekers A total of 2,500 young people claiming to be under the age of 18 came to Norway and applied for asylum without being accompanied by parents or another per-son with parental responsibility. This was an increase of 76 per cent from 2008.

Most asylum seekers

came from countries

ridden by war and conflict. 0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

09080706050403020100

Figure 2. Asylum applications to Norway. 2000–2009

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

KosovoIran

NigeriaEthiopia

RussiaIraq

StatelessSomalia

EritreaAfghanistan 2008

2009

Figure 3. Asylum applications to Norway, top ten countries of origin. 2008–2009


Refugees in the world: 41,000,000

More than nine out of ten

unaccompanied mi-nor asylum seekers were

male, and 69 per cent were from Afghanistan. The greatest increase in the number of unaccompanied minor asy-lum seekers was for Afghanistan, Somalia and Eritrea. There was a marked decline in unaccompanied minors from Iraq.

Fast-track processing of asylum applicationsApproximately 1,000 asylum applica-tions were subject to fast-track process-ing in 2009. The UDI gives priority to

applications from persons who have committed criminal offences, from per-sons who have stayed illegally in Norway or who are from countries where we usu-ally reject a high proportion of applica-tions.

In December, the UDI also started fast-track processing of asylum cases in which there is a specific reason to doubt the asy-lum seeker’s stated identity. This includes cases where the asylum seeker has ma-nipulated his/her fingerprints, provided false identity documents or given conflict-ing information about his/her identity to the Norwegian authorities.

The number of asylum seekers in Europe increasedNorway was not the only European country that experienced a marked in-crease in the number of asylum seekers in 2009. Like Norway, Germany experi-enced a marked increase, and Denmark and Finland received more asylum ap-plications than in the previous year. The increase was not as strong as in Norway, however. Sweden received the same number of asylum seekers in 2009 as in 2008.

Why do asylum seekers choose Norway?

In autumn 2009, the Institute for Social Research (ISF) conducted a research project for the UDI with the goal of finding out why asylum seek-ers choose to come to Norway.

It is not easy to decide where to apply for asylum. Some people make the decision before leaving their home country, some choose their destination

later in the process – and may change their minds several times along the way.

The asylum seekers who were inter-viewed gave several reasons for choosing a specific country in which to apply for asylum. The two most impor-tant reasons, security and future pros-pects, are common to all the Northern European countries. However, the type of network the person has in the coun-

try, how he/she perceives the country’s asylum policy, and the country’s repu-tation or image can vary from country to country and change over time. The final choice is based on whether the country at the time of the decision is perceived as a good, attractive place for the asylum seeker.

Read more about the report at www.udi.no/whynorway

Source: UNHCR and the Norwegian Refugee Council


Asylum seekers to Europe: 280,000

Asylum seekers to the Nordic countries: 50,000

Asylum seekers to Norway: 17,200

Refugees outside own country: 15,000,000

Identity in asylum casesNine out of ten asylum seekers who came to Norway in 2009 stated that they did not have identity documents.

Various reasons There are various reasons why so many asylum seekers are unable to present identity documents when they apply for asylum:

the authorities do not issue official ID documents or where it is uncom-mon to have ID documents.

authorities in their home country and have got rid of their ID docu-ments to avoid being identified should they be apprehended in or outside their home country.

them to conceal their documents.

someone else.

Provided documentation later A high percentage of people nonetheless provide some form of documentation that helps to clarify their identity during case processing. Nine out of ten asylum

seekers who had their cases considered on their merits in Norway during the first six months of 2009 provided iden-tity documents. Some presented pass-ports or highly credible national ID cards to document their identity. Many pre-sented other forms of identity docu-ments, such as exam certificates or driv-ing licences, which, in combination with other information, led us to believe that it was likely that the asylum seeker had stated his/her correct identity.

In some cases, we provide protection even if a person’s identity is not substan-tiated. This is the case if we believe that the applicant is entitled to protection in Norway regardless of whether we know that his/her stated identity is correct. Most often, this concerns women and children.

It pays to cooperate The case processing time in an asylum case is prolonged if the applicant does

not provide ID documents or in other ways contribute to clarifying his/her identity. The percentage of people whose asylum applications are rejected is also far higher for those who have not sub-stantiated their identity.

Fewer asylum seekers were granted work permits Asylum seekers can be granted a permit that allows them to work while they wait for their application to be processed. In 2009, the practising of this rule was tightened. Now, asylum seekers have to be able to document their identity to be granted such a permit. Because most of the asylum seekers did not have identity documents that could be approved, only a few people were granted preliminary work permits in 2009. The percentage of persons who applied and were granted a preliminary work permit fell from 92 per cent in 2008 to 43 per cent in 2009.


Many Afghans emigrateIn 2009, 2,500 persons applied for asylum as unaccompanied minors, 69 per cent of them boys from Afghanistan. This is a marked increase in relation to previous years. In 2008, 580 unaccompanied minor asylum seekers came from Afghanistan, and only 90 in 2007.

This increase was not limited to Norway, but occurred through-out Europe. The Nordic countries and the UK experienced the greatest increase in the number of registered asylum applica-tions, while many young Afghans stayed illegally in France and Greece. To be able to say something about why so many young Afghans emigrated, we must look at the conditions in their home country.

One in five children dieAfghanistan is a country ravaged by armed conflicts. The inter-national UN forces fight with the government forces against the Taliban at the same time as local conflicts flare up through-out the country. One in five children do not live to see their fifth birthday.

The majority of the young people who came to Norway came from central and eastern parts of Afghanistan. They were al-most exclusively male, and 38 per cent were under the age of 16. Many of them had lost their father. When that happens, the extended family takes over responsibility for the person, and widows often marry their late husband’s brother. Children must often look after themselves from the age of 15. When they apply for protection in Norway, they often talk about the difficult situation in their home country in general, personal conflicts and forced recruitment to the Taliban.

Difficult conditions in neighbouring countriesFewer and fewer of the Afghans who apply for asylum in Norway come directly from Afghanistan. To understand the increase in the number of asylum seekers, we must therefore also look at the situation for the almost five million Afghans who live in Iraq, Pakistan and other European countries.

Afghans stay in Pakistan on grounds of so-called tolerated residence, without work permits or other rights. Half of them are under the age of 15. In Iran, half of the Afghan nationals are under 17, and only those who arrived before the fall of the Taliban in 2001 are deemed to be refugees. The rest are forcibly sent out of the country.

Norway is attractiveThe reason why so many Afghan nationals choose Norway is closely connected to the information they have heard about other people’s experiences. Afghan nationals who had been granted residence here talk about a country where they were taken care of and were allowed to stay. When Norway stopped returning asylum seekers to Greece, this information quickly spread to those waiting further south in Europe.

91 per cent of all unaccompanied minor asylum seekers whose cases were considered on their merits in Norway – a total of 840 persons – were granted residence.

Extended age examinationMany asylum seekers who claim to be unaccompanied minors are over the age of 18. To avoid adults misusing a right that only children should have, the UDI has extended the medical

Year of the kite runners

Every week, enough young Afghans to fill a classroom applied for asylum in Norway. The reasons for this lie in Afghanistan, in other countries in Europe and in Asia – as well as in Norway’s policy.

F O C U S O N


age examination to include x-rays of the applicant’s carpus (wristbones) in addition to a dental examination. This extend-ed age examination also includes an overall evaluation of the applicant’s age by doctors at the Children’s Clinic at Ullevål University Hospital. The results of the examinations are in-cluded in an overall evaluation in which the applicant will always be given the benefit of the doubt.

What will happen in 2010?It is difficult to predict how many Afghan asylum seekers will come to Norway in 2010. Several of the measures taken by the

Government to tighten the rules are aimed at unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. Two important changes in the regula-tions entered into force in 2009. Unaccompanied minors are no longer generally exempt from being returned to another country that participates in the Dublin Regulation cooperation, and young people over the age of 16 who are only granted residence because care providers cannot be located can be granted a preliminary permit that means they will have to return to their home country when they reach the age of 18. These changes may affect the number of Afghans applying for asylum in Norway in 2010.

Below the age of 18 at the time of application, but no longer registered

as unaccompanied

Over the age of 18 at the time of application

Cases considered as involving an

unaccompanied minor

Over the age of 18 at the time the

decision was made

513 20

63%

Humanitarian grounds

Limited permit

Rejection

Asylum

Protection 124

710

68 %

Figure 6. Number of cases considered on their merits involving unaccompanied minors following age examination. 2009

Figure 7. Cases considered on their merits where the applicant was deemed to be an unaccompanied minor, by outcome. 2009

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

09080706050403020100

Figure 4. Asylum applications from unaccompanied minors from Afghanistan. 2000-2009

1,750

1,500

1,250

1,000

750

500

250

0EthiopiaIraqEritreaSomaliaAfghanistan

Boys

Girls

Figure 5. Asylum applications from unaccompanied minors by gender, five biggest countries. 2009


Everyone is entitled to apply

for asylum

Application registered by

the police

Offer of accommo-dation in transit

reception centre and health check

Asylum interview by

the UDI

Offer of accommo-dation in ordinary asylum reception

centre

Provisional guardian appointed for

unaccompanied minor asylum seekers

Age examination if there is doubt about the applicant’s age

The asylum process

The road to NorwayEveryone is entitled to apply for protection (asylum) in Norway, but not everyone can be granted a permit to come here. Most people therefore come to Norway illegally, often with the help of people smugglers. Many asylum seekers from Afghanistan tell us that they leave their home country by bus or truck, travel via Iran to Turkey and continue by truck or plane. Many said that they hid in the back of a truck, and some were strapped underneath the truck.

The land route to Norway costs around USD 10,000, which corre-sponds to ten annual incomes in Afghanistan. The air route costs around USD 30,000, having tripled since 11 September 2001. Some explained that they have made a deal with the smuggler to pay part of the sum in advance and the rest when they have managed to save enough money in Norway.

IdentityFor the immigration authorities, the question of identity includes infor-mation about names (first name, middle name, last name), gender, date of birth, nationality, family rela-tionships and clan affiliation.

We have several aids that help us establish whether the stated iden-tity is correct. These include identity documents that we find credible, interviews with the person in ques-tion, age examinations, language analyses, investigations in the per-son’s home country with assistance from the foreign service mission or an organisation, as well as finger-prints.

The police fingerprint all persons over the age of 14 who apply for protec-tion in Norway. The prints are com-pared with international databases, for example to find out whether the identity that the applicant has stated in Norway is the same that he/she is registered with in other countries.

Clothes and moneyAt the transit reception centre, the asylum seekers are given a set of clothes containing a winter coat, a fleece jacket, a tracksuit, a t-shirt, long underpants, socks, gloves, a hat, winter boots, trainers and slip-pers. The clothes are means-test-ed and intended to cover the per-son’s basic needs during the first period in Norway.

When asylum seekers move from the transit reception centre to an ordinary reception centre, they re-ceive a little more in financial sup-port to cover necessities such as clothes and food. Unaccompanied asylum seekers receive NOK 3,100 a month if they live in a reception centre where they cook their own food, and NOK 1,225 if they live in a reception centre with a canteen.

* Asylum seekers who are covered by the Dublin Regulation are not included in this presentation.


Decision by the UDI

Rejection

Application granted

Appeal against decision,

legal assistance

Rejection by UNE

Settlement

Application granted

Offer of accommodation

in waiting reception centre

Forced return

Voluntary return

Open questions Everyone who applies for protec-tion is interviewed by one of the UDI’s case officers. The asylum interview is the most important basis for considering an asylum application. Such interviews often last a whole day, and this is the applicant’s opportunity to present his/her story. It is therefore impor-tant that all relevant matters are discussed.

It is a challenge to recall and talk about difficult experiences. If the applicant is allowed to tell the story freely in his/her own words, with-out interruption, he or she will re-member more, and it will also be easier to tell a coherent and logical story. The interviewer must there-fore only ask open, not leading questions. If control questions are necessary, they will be asked at the end of the interview.

Language analysis Where in his/her home country the applicant comes from can often decide whether or not he/she is entitled to protection. This applies, among others, to applicants from Somalia, where the south is ridden by civil war while the north is safer. While the language is the same in the north and the south, there are slight differences in dialects. For ex-ample, dialects in the south of So-malia have nasals such as [ ] and [ ]. If the applicant speaks a dialect without such nasal sounds, it can indicate that the person in question is not from the south of Somalia. If the UDI doubts the applicant’s con-nection to the place he or she has stated, we make a sound recording and have it analysed by language experts. They assess whether the applicant speaks a dialect that is common in the area. This analysis is one of many important elements involved in the consideration of an application for protection.

Dignified returnNot everyone who has received a final rejection of their application for protection returns to their home country. For many people, it can be difficult to go back. There may be many complicated reasons for this, but it is often the case that the rea-sons for leaving are still present. For some, returning can also give rise to a sense of failure. In this light, Lier waiting reception centre has estab-lished a competence-raising course that can make it easier to return and get a job in one’s home country. The reception centre organises courses in English and car mechanics in ad-dition to computer courses. That way, the asylum seekers do not have to return to their home country emp-ty-handed – which can help to make the return more dignified. In order to participate, the residents have under-taken to return voluntarily when they have completed the courses. Their travel expenses are covered, and they receive a grant of NOK 10,000 once they have returned.


Asylum decisions A total of 4,500 persons were granted residence in Norway after having applied for asylum. This accounted for 42 per cent of all the cases that the UDI considered on their merits.

Changes for Afghan nationals and stateless PalestiniansThe percentage of applications granted has increased steadily since summer 2008, but it declined sharply in the sec-ond half of 2009. This is mainly due to a change in the regulations and practice for some groups of asylum seekers.

There was an increase in the number of unaccompanied young men and families with children from Afghanistan whose asylum applications were rejected. While many people were previously granted residence on humanitarian grounds, they are now often referred to safe areas in their home country.

There was also a change in practice that ended the general protection for state-less Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. All the cases were therefore proc-essed on an individual basis and assessed on the basis of information about the place the applicants came from, their background and the reasons given for applying for asylum.

Same percentage of applications granted as in 2008Despite the fact that more Afghan natio-nals and stateless Palestinians had their applications rejected, the total percent-age of applications granted was the same as in 2008. One of the reasons is that we received more asylum applications from Eritrea, and that many of those appli-cants were in need of protection. At the same time, the number of applicants from Iraq and Russia, where the rejection rate is usually high, declined in 2009.

Differences between nationalities, genders and age groupsMost decisions were made in relation to applications from persons from Afghan-istan, Iraq, Eritrea and Somalia and from

Asylum

Other protection

Humanitarian grounds

Rejection 16

15

10

58 %

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Other c

ountrie

s

Sri Lan

ka

Nigeria

EthiopiaIra

n

Russia

Somalia

Statele

ss

EritreaIra

q

Afghanist

an

2008 2009

Figure 8. Decisions in asylum cases considered on their merits, by outcome. 2009

Figure 9. Percentage of applications granted from countries with most decisions. 2008-2009

Campaign against Open Drug Scenes

In 2009, the UDI, Oslo Police District and the National Police Immigration Service collaborated on measures aimed at asylum seekers involved in drug crimes. One of the reasons was the overt drug trading scene that had developed in the capital.

The goal of the collaboration was to speed up the processing of asylum cases where the applicant had been arrested for selling drugs, and subse-quently escort them out of the country. The UDI undertook to process these

applications within five days and to pri-oritise expulsion decisions, if applicable.

As part of the campaign, Oslo Police District arrested several hundred asylum seekers and foreign nationals. They came from more than 50 different countries, but the majority were from Algeria, Nigeria, Iraq or Somalia, or they were stateless. Many of those who were arrested for selling drugs were organised criminals who did not need protection but were trying to take advantage of the asylum scheme.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MenWomen

Children Adults

Figure 10. Percentage of applications granted, by age and gender. 2009

Stateless

Afghanistan

Eritrea

Other countries

Bhutan

Myanmar/ Burma

20

17

17

14

14

18

%

Figure 11. Resettlement refugees, by nationality. 2009

stateless persons. If we look at the number of cases considered on their merits, the percentage of applications granted was over 90 for people from Eritrea and So-malia, while the percentage for stateless asylum seekers was 53. The percentage of applications granted also differs in relation to the applicants’ sex. Men received rejections more often than women. While 57 per cent of adult women were granted residence after having applied for asylum, the corre-sponding figure for men was 29 per cent. Over a quarter of all those who were granted asylum were children and young people under the age of 18, and only 3 per cent of the permits were granted to persons over the age of 50.

Resettlement refugees

Norway received 1,110 resettle-ment refugees in 2009. More than half of them were women.

Resettlement refugees are refugees who cannot return to their home country or be granted residence in the country in which they are refugees. Some of them are allowed to come to Norway through an organised selec-tion process. Most are selected in cooperation with the UN High Com-missioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Who came in 2009?The biggest groups were 220 stateless refugees (most of them Palestinians), 190 Afghans, 190 Eritreans, 150 Bhutanese and 150 Burmese.

cent were women. This is in line with the goal of 55 per cent women. 13 per cent of the resettlement refu-gees were women from particularly vulnerable groups.

Over a quarter of all those who were granted asylum were children and young people under the age of 18.


Cooperation under the Dublin RegulationA quarter of all the asylum applications that we processed in 2009 were from persons who had already applied for protection, had their fingerprints registered or held a visa or a residence permit in another country that participates in the Dublin Regulation cooperation.

Many registered in other countriesThe purpose of the Dublin Regulation is partly to prevent persons from travelling from country to country to apply for asy-lum, so-called asylum shopping, and partly to ensure that all asylum applica-tions are processed.

More and more asylum seekers in Nor-way are covered by the Dublin proce-dure. For Norway, the cooperation means that we process fewer asylum ap-plications than we otherwise would.

This is because many of those who ap-plied for asylum were already registered in another country, while far fewer are initially registered in Norway.

In 2009, we sent approximately 4,000 queries to other European countries and received just over 1,100. Most of the queries from Norway were addressed to Greece, Italy and Sweden, while the que-ries received by Norway mainly came from Sweden, Germany and Finland.

Exceptions to the ruleAll Dublin cases are considered on an indi-vidual basis. Among other things, this means that we examine the applicant’s connection to Norway. If the applicant has a spouse or minor children in Norway, or if he/she is a minor and has parents in Nor-way, we will process the application here. Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers are only returned to other Dublin countries if they have applied for asylum there.

Read more about the Dublin Regulation on pages 8 and 9.

Processed pursuant to the Dublin Regulation

Dropped/withdrawn

Not considered on their merits for

other reasons

Considered on their merits in Norway

25

1668

%

Figure 12. Decisions in asylum cases by type of decision. 2009

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

20092008200720062005

3,500

4,000

Figure 13. Decisions pursuant to the Dublin Regulation. 2005–2009

Consideration of an asylum case on its merits

When we decide whether an asylum seeker needs protection, we say that the case is being considered on its merits. Not all asylum cases will be considered on their merits. The most important reason for this is if the appli-cant’s need for protection should be or has been considered in another country that participates in the Dublin Regulation cooperation.

In 2009, we processed 15,700 asylum

considered on their merits in Norway,

Considering a case on its own merits may lead to the applicant being granted asylum status, another form of protec-tion or residence on humanitarian

grounds, or that the application is re-jected. The first three results give the applicant right of residence in Norway, but the different permits do not entail the same rights. Persons who receive a rejection of their application can appeal the rejection to the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE). If the case is rejected by UNE, the applicant must leave the country.


Large increase in number of asylum seekers to Norway The background to the restrictive measures was a marked increase in the number of asylum seekers to Norway in 2008, more than any other European country. The purpose was partly to limit the number of asylum seekers coming to Norway without a need for protection, and partly to avoid a situation in which a disproportionally large percentage of asylum seek-ers who come to Europe apply for asylum in Norway.

A number of different measures The measures are wide-ranging and include increased use of return to safe areas in the asylum seeker’s home country, a more restrictive practice in Dublin cases, new readmission agreements with important countries of origin and stricter demands on asylum seekers with respect to clarifying their identity. One of the Government’s goals is that Norway’s prac-tice shall largely be in accordance with the practice in other comparable countries.

Impact of the measures As many of the restrictive measures have only been in effect for a short period, it is difficult to say anything about their overall effect. In the UDI’s view, however, several of the meas-ures contributed to a decline in the number of asylum seekers towards the end of 2009.

Readmission agreement with Iraq Norway experienced a greater decline in the number of Iraqi asylum seekers than other European countries in 2009. This was probably related to the cancellation of the general protec-

tion granted to applicants from central Iraq. The countries also signed a readmission agreement that enabled the forced expul-sion of 30 Iraqis to Bagdad in December. After that, the number of Iraqis who applied for support to return voluntarily to their home country increased.

Internal flight in Afghanistan The restrictive measures have also resulted in more asylum applications being rejected. This applies to applicants from Afghanistan, among others. Unaccompanied young men and families with children from Afghanistan who were previously granted residence on humanitarian grounds are now often referred to Kabul, which is considered a safe area. The fact that more applications were rejected may have contributed to a decline in the number of asylum seekers from Afghanistan.

Restrictions in Dublin cases A number of restrictions have been introduced in cases covered by the Dublin Regulation. Unaccompanied minor asylum seek-ers can now be returned to other Dublin countries if they have applied for asylum or if their application has been processed there before they came to Norway. Families with children can now also be returned to Greece. These restrictions have prob-ably affected the number of asylum seekers to Norway. The UDI and the National Police Immigration Service have also intensified case processing and the work of escorting appli-cants to other countries that participate in the Dublin Regula-tion cooperation.

More restrictive asylum and refugee policy

During 2008 and 2009, the Government adopted a number of measures aimed at making its asylum policy more restrictive.

F O C U S O N


Many new asylum reception centresThe number of asylum seekers and residents in Norwegian reception centres has never been higher than at the end of 2009.

Capacity as requiredAll asylum seekers who come to Norway are entitled to accommodation. It is the UDI’s responsibility to offer asylum seek-ers accommodation at an asylum recep-tion centre. This is a challenging task. We need to have enough places available at all times, while it is not profitable from a socio-economic perspective to have many vacant places. That is why capacity at the reception centres is not constant. We are dependent on being able to establish new places as the need arises.

Rapid expansionMajor developments have taken place in the past two years – both in the number of places and in the number of new recep-tion centres. 46 new asylum reception centres were opened in 2009, and capac-ity was increased by more than 6,600 places. At the end of the year, there were 150 asylum reception centres, with 19,600 residents. Expansion continued as never before, and the reception sys-tem was under constant pressure.

Asylum reception centres in 129 municipalities When the UDI establishes new reception centres, it follows public procurement regulations. We advertise for potential operators and enter into an agreement with the operator that submits the best overall offer. At the end of 2009, 129 of the country’s municipalities had one or more reception centres. Sixteen of these municipalities ran the reception centres themselves, while the rest were host mu-nicipalities for reception centres run by private agencies or voluntary organisa-tions.

Many unaccompanied minor asylum seekers One of the major challenges in 2009 was the arrival of very many unaccompanied minor asylum seekers between the ages of 15 and 18. The increase led to a tripling in the demand for places in reception centres for this group. These reception centres have higher staffing levels and facilities specially adapted to the needs of young people. At the end of the year, there were 58 reception centres and

units for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, with a total of 1,620 residents.

Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers under the age of 15 live in separate care centres run by the Children, Youth and Family Affairs Service.

New agreement with KSThe UDI is completely dependent on the municipalities doing their share of provid-ing accommodation for asylum seekers. The Norwegian government and the Norwegian Association of Local and Re-gional Authorities (KS) signed an agree-ment in 2009 for the establishment and closing of reception centres and the ac-commodation of refugees. The agree-ment obliges the parties to work together to adjust capacity in the asylum centres in line with national demand.

Quality requirements at the reception centresThe UDI is responsible for following up the reception centres and, in 2009, we made it a priority to carry out inspec-tions of the new reception centres and

Evt bilde av sofaNora ikke sendt


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 14. Residents in reception centres at the end of the year. 1993–2009

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

20092008200720062005200420032002

Figure 16. Residents in reception centres for unaccompanied minors and care centres at the end of the year. 2002–2009

Reception centres for

unaccompanied minor asylum

seekers are specially adapted

to young people’s needs.

Rejection received from the UDI, appeal under consideration

Dropped/withdrawn/other status/lack of registration

Obligation to leave the country

Permit granted, settlement pending

Application being

processed by the UDI 7

48

2

1

22

20

Permit granted, not to be settled

%

Figure 15. Residents in reception centres by application status at 31 December 2009

Rejection received from the UDI, appeal under

consideration

Obligation to leave the country

Permit granted, settlement pending

Permit granted, not to be settled

Application being

processed by the UDI

1176

2

56%

Figure 17. Residents in reception centres for unaccom panied minors by application status at 31 December 2009

centres for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. We terminated our agreement with two reception centres because they failed to meet the quality requirements. We will continue this work in 2010 to ensure that the operators deliver the required quality.

Concern short-livedSometimes, the establishment of a new reception centre is met by scepticism and local resistance. But in 2009, as before, this concern evaporated once the recep-tion centre was established. Dikemark transit reception centre in Asker is a good example of this. Some of its neigh-

bours were concerned about the poten-tial challenges involved in the establish-ment of an asylum reception centre. However, a year after the centre was opened, the police report that the area is one of the quietest in the municipality and the neighbours are very satisfied with the reception centre.


Different types of asylum reception centres

When asylum seekers arrive in Norway, they are initially offered accommodation in a transit recep-tion centre. There is one transit reception centre in Trondheim, while the rest are located in East-ern Norway. When the asylum seek-ers have completed a health check and an asylum interview, they are placed in ordinary reception centres around the country. They can stay there until they receive a final reply to their asylum application.

A positive reply means that the asylum seekers receive an offer of accommodation in a municipality. If they are not granted protection or residence on other grounds, they must leave the country. These former asylum seekers are then offered accommodation in one of the UDI’s two waiting reception centres until departure. Families and people with health problems can continue to live in an ordinary recep-tion centre until they return home.

Unaccompanied minor asylum seek-ers live in separate reception centres or units that take their age and need for additional follow-up into account.

Asylum reception centres

in Norwayat 31 December 2009


Responsibility for their everyday livesA reception centre is neither a hotel nor an institution. It is voluntary accommodation for persons who are waiting for their asylum applications to be decided. At all ordinary recep-tion centres, the asylum seekers are responsible for doing their own shopping and cooking, for cleaning and tidying their room and for taking part in the cleaning of common areas. They also take part in activities, studies and work.

Comprehensive information programmeAll asylum seekers who live in reception centres must complete an information programme that is intended to give them a realistic picture of Norwegian society and an understanding of the values on which it is built. The programme addresses life at the reception centre, the local community, the asylum process, health issues, laws and crime, prevention of conflicts, return and settlement. An information programme tailor-made for children and young people will also be introduced in 2010.

Training and schoolingAdult asylum seekers who live in ordinary reception centres are entitled to tuition in the Norwegian language, and the goal is for them to learn enough Norwegian to manage on their own as far as possible. Children and young people who are likely to stay at a reception centre for more than three months have a right and an obligation to attend primary or lower sec-ondary education. Young people between the ages of 16 and 18 are entitled to tuition in the Norwegian language and social studies and may also be entitled to tuition in primary or lower secondary school subjects.

Employment and vocational qualificationsPersons who have documented their identity can apply for a preliminary work permit and get a job. In 2009, 2,100 such permits were granted. Some people also obtain vocational qualifications this way.

Recreational activities and voluntary workAll reception centres have an activity programme for various recreational activities. The asylum seekers organise several activities themselves. Many of them are also involved in vol-untary work at the reception centre. Some are part of a care-taker group, others spend time as language assistants, while others organise the use of internet or activity rooms.

The reception centres often form ties with the local sports club. The residents can make an important contribution to local clubs and associations. Many participate in children’s nights, get help with homework and are members of women’s groups organised by voluntary organisations.

Various reasons for prolonged residenceThe period spent at the reception centre should be as short as possible. Nonetheless, some asylum seekers live in reception centres for too long due to long processing times, challenges relating to settlement and the fact that many who had received a final rejection of their application did not return voluntarily. In 2009, the residence period at reception centres from the asylum application was received until the person had settled in a municipality was twelve months.1

1 Twelve months is the median. That means that as many asylum seekers lived in reception centres for a shorter period than twelve months as for a longer period.

Life at an asylum reception centre

We often hear that asylum seekers ‘sit’ in reception centres. This does not give an accurate picture of the everyday lives of many of those who live there. Some of them study, some work and others are involved in voluntary work.

A S Y L S P E S I A LT E M A F O C U S O N


More people returned voluntarilyThere was a marked increase in the number of voluntary returns in 2009. The Norwegian authorities want even more people to choose voluntary return in the years ahead.

Return after rejectionIn order to safeguard the right to asylum and protection, it is important that per-sons whose asylum applications have been rejected leave Norway. It is in the best interests of everyone that this takes place by voluntary return.

Increase of 79 per centIn 2009, 1,020 persons returned volun-tarily to their home countries, an in-crease of 79 per cent from 2008. There are special return programmes for per-sons from Iraq, Afghanistan and Burun-di, which include support for reintegra-tion in their home country. The return and reintegration programme for Iraq (IRRINI) is probably the reason why Iraqis were by far the largest group to choose voluntary return in 2009.

Many Iraqis returnedA total of 370 Iraqis took advantage of the return programme. Those who re-turned voluntarily received a cash grant of NOK 10,000 each. The programme also offers reintegration support of up to NOK 25,000 per person. In 2009, the scheme was extended to include an op-tion of applying for up to NOK 20,000 in housing allowance.

In Iraq, the programme offers personal advice and reintegration support, such as help to find a job, take education or support to set up a business. The Norwe-gian foundation Business Innovation Programs (BIP) provides training in set-ting up businesses to Iraqis who return to the Kurdish areas of the country.

Return programme for other groups From 1 September, most people return-ing voluntarily to their home country were entitled to NOK 10,000 in reinte-gration support. The support is intended to help to make life easier in the initial period after returning. During the last four months of 2009, 220 persons re-ceived such support. The largest groups were from Kosovo, Serbia, Nigeria and the Palestinian territories. Extended re-integration support is intended to make it easier for those who do not hold resi-dence permits in Norway to return vol-untarily. The return programme will continue in 2010.

Persons who receive support to return must pay it back if they later apply for asylum or residence on other grounds in Norway.

Alternative information channels It is a challenge to provide information about voluntary return to persons who do not live in reception centres. An in-creasing percentage of those who return voluntarily live elsewhere. That is why the UDI wishes to make use of alterna-tive channels to reach them, such as the information programme ‘Outreach’. In Stavanger, we work with the Interna-tional House Foundation (SIH), which

Voluntary return

Everyone who receives a final rejec-tion of their application for asylum or is staying illegally in Norway is obliged to leave the country. They can get help to return by applying for support for voluntary return. Persons who return voluntarily will not have to pay travel expenses and will not be accompanied by the police. The independent Inter-national Organization for Migration (IOM) can provide information, ad-vice and practical assistance prior to departure and after arrival back home.


has 78 organisations among its users. This way, information about voluntary return reaches a wider audience.

Dignified return Lier waiting reception centre received financial support from the UDI to provide training, vocational training and a reinte-gration grant of NOK 10,000 to asylum seekers who had received a final rejection of their application if they returned vol-untarily. The project ‘A dignified return – helping people help themselves’ only applies to persons who agree to voluntary return. The project has been well received by the residents at the waiting reception centre, and 11 of the 29 participants have returned so far. The UDI wants the other waiting reception centre to provide a similar service for its residents in 2010.

Forced return The police are responsible for escorting persons who have received a final rejec-tion of their asylum applications but refuse to leave Norway voluntarily. Those who are returned against their will must cover the travel expenses themselves. The government pays for those who do not have money, but they will then be indebted to the state.

Those who are forcibly returned are usu-ally accompanied by the police and also have to cover their expenses. Just over 3,300 persons were forcibly returned in 2009, an increase of 44 per cent from the year before.

Readmission agreements The Norwegian authorities signed re-admission agreements with the author-

ities in Albania, Armenia, Iraq, Burundi, Montenegro and Serbia in 2009. The readmission agreements enable persons from these countries to be forcibly re-turned from Norway. In addition, Nor-way has previously signed readmission agreements with the authorities of 14 other countries.

Extended reintegration support is

intended to make it easier for those

who do not hold residence permits

in Norway to return voluntarily.


Easier for labour immigrantsFrom October 2009, most EEA nationals no longer need to apply for a residence permit in Norway. If they have received an offer of employment, they can register with the police and start working.

New rules for EEA nationalsThe new registration system makes it easier for most EEA nationals to start working in Norway immediately. They no longer need to apply for a permit to live and work here, but must register with the police. The scheme does not apply to first-time applicants who are nationals of Bulgaria or Romania. They are covered by the transitional rules for new EU member states and still have to apply for a residence permit to be able to live and work in Norway.

Fewer applications for work permitsUp until the work permit requirement ceased to apply to EEA nationals, fewer work permits had been granted than in the same period the year before. There was a marked decline in the number of work permits in the second half of the year that came in addition to the normal seasonal decline. This can partly be ex-plained by the fact that many people knew that they did not have to apply for a residence permit after 1 October.

The majority of labour immigrants still came from Poland, Lithuania and Ger-many, and most came to work in the construction industry, manufacturing industry or in the trade, hotel and restau-rant industry.

There were also fewer first-time work permit applications from countries out-

side the EEA in 2009. There were none-theless more people from these coun-tries with valid work permits at the end of the year than at the end of 2008. A total of 8,060 persons held valid permits as skilled workers, which is an increase of 11 per cent from the year before. Most skilled workers came from India, Russia, China, the USA and the Philippines.

It is now much easier for EEA nationals

to start working immediately.

A new registration scheme for EEA nationals

Directive that intends to ensure the right to free movement and resi-dence in the EU/EEA area for EEA nationals and their family members.

-rary registration requirement from 1 October, before the permanent scheme entered into force with the new Immigration Act on 1 January 2010.

residence permits. EEA nationals no longer need a permit to stay and

work in Norway, but they must register with the police when they arrive. Workers from Romania or Bulgaria, who are still covered by the transitional rules for new EU member states, must still apply for a residence permit.

largely the same as for the current system of residence permits.

for an unlimited period and does not have to be renewed.


The service centres – meeting points for labour immigrants In autumn 2009, two new service centres for foreign workers opened in Stavanger and Kirkenes. The service centre in Oslo, which opened in 2007, had almost 68,000 visitors during the year.

At the service centres, workers can re-ceive guidance and swift processing of applications for residence and moving to Norway. Applicants can register and be granted a residence permit, be issued a tax deduction card and obtain a per-sonal identity number – all in one place. The centres also provide information about Norwegian pay and working con-ditions. In Oslo and Stavanger, it took five working days to obtain all the docu-ments, while at the centre in Kirkenes, it took ten days on average.

The service centres are a collaboration between the Norwegian Tax Administra-

tion, the Labour Inspection Authority, the police and the UDI. The centres have been established for EEA nationals, skilled workers and specialists from countries outside the EEA, and their families. The Kirkenes centre also serves unskilled Russian workers and Russian cross-border workers resident in the Bar-ents Region. Employers can also receive guidance at the service centres.

Many enquiries from employersMany employers contacted the centres in 2009 to obtain information about the regulations and case processing, and the number of enquiries about the new Im-migration Act increased towards the end of the year. In addition to a dedicated phone and email service for employers, the UDI also organised an open-day event and information meetings about matters such as work permits, the EEA Regulations, seasonal permits, visas and the au pair scheme.

Combating social dumpingThe pay and working conditions for la-bour immigrants must not be poorer than for Norwegian employees. The rules are meant to protect foreign work-ers and ensure that they work under decent conditions. If the pay or working conditions are not good enough, the UDI will consider reporting the employer to the police.

To help to ensure good pay and working conditions for foreign workers, we par-ticipated in the project ‘Seriøsitet i bygge-næringen’ (‘Decent work practices in the construction industry’), and the service centres made it easier to provide useful information to both employers and em-ployees. The Labour Inspection Author-ity is an important partner in the work of uncovering poor pay and working conditions.


Skilled worker

Seasonal permit

Other

EEA national 11

71072

%

Figure 20. First-time work permits by basis for the permit. 2009

Lithuania

Romania

Germany

United Kingdom

Poland

Other countries

11

67

27

45 3%

Figure 21. First-time work permits by nationality. 2009

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

09080706050403020100

Figure 19. First-time work permits for skilled workers. 2000–2009

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Renewals New permits

09080706050403020100

Figure 18. Work permits. 2000–2009


Still a need for skilled workers The financial crisis appears to have had limited effect on peo-ple from outside the EEA area. The number of new labour immigrants fell slightly in 2009, but the number of valid permits continued to rise throughout the year. The number of skilled workers increased in almost all sectors, with the exception of the retail trade and the building and construction industry. The petroleum sector, the shipbuilding industry and higher education institutions experienced a marked increase in rela-tion to 2008. This shows that Norwegian businesses still need highly qualified labour immigrants.

Fewer people from the EEA area, more from RomaniaIt is difficult to measure the effect of the financial crisis on EEA nationals, since, from October 2009, this group no longer needed to apply for residence permits. In addition, many of the permits granted recently are valid for five years, and the number of valid permits will therefore also include permits for persons who have left Norway. The number of valid permits thus does not provide a completely correct picture at times when there is reason to believe that many people are leaving Norway. There is no doubt, however, that the number of new labour immigrants from Eastern Europe has declined.

Many Bulgarian and Romanian labour immigrants chose to come to Norway in 2009, however. For example, many Romanian weld-ers came to Norway to work in the shipbuilding industry.

Increased unemployment Many European countries saw Eastern European labour immi-grants leaving as a result of higher unemployment and low wages. In Norway, however, many of them stayed and regis-

tered as job seekers. According to figures from Statistics Nor-way, the unemployment rate among EU nationals from Eastern European countries who reside in Norway more than doubled between November 2008 and November 2009.

Unemployment increased most among those who were last to come to the country. This is in line with developments regis-tered by the OECD elsewhere in Europe. Unemployment also increased significantly more for men than for women, as more men were employed in sectors that were affected by the finan-cial crisis.

The financial crisis affected labour immigration

The number of persons holding work permits in Norway increased in 2009, but by less than before. Many people who were already here stayed – despite rising unemployment in many industries.

A R B E I D S P E S I A LT E M A F O C U S O N


Fewer tourist visasFor the second year in a row, the number of visitor visas to Norway fell.

Fewer visasIn the last few years, more and more people have been issued visitor visas by the Norwegian authorities – as tourists, business travellers, people making family visits and others. But in 2008, the tide turned, and this trend continued in 2009. The total of 100,400 issued visas was almost 6,000 fewer than in 2008.

However, the Norwegian figures cannot be read uncritically. An Indian national, for example, can come to Norway as a tourist on a visa issued by another Schen-gen country. Nevertheless, the financial crisis and the swine flu do seem to have put a damper on people’s wanderlust.

Russian nationals are still issued most visas It was not only tourists who were granted fewer visas. The number of visas issued to business travellers and people visiting the country for cultural purposes fell compared with the year before. Russian nationals were still issued most visas to Norway and they accounted for over 40 per cent of all visas. However, at 15 per cent, the decline was also greatest for this group. The number of Russian visa applications fell from 48,500 in 2008 to 41,100 in 2009.

This development must be seen in con-junction with the visa agreement that Norway and Russia signed at the end of 2008. It was intended to make it easier for nationals of the two countries to visit each other. Russian nationals can now be issued multiple entry visas. Whereas, previously, three trips across the Russian border meant that you needed three vi-sas, one is now sufficient. The number of multiple entry visas for Russian nationals rose from 8,270 in 2008 to 12,260 in 2009.

Rejection of visa applicationsVisa cases often receive a lot of attention in the media when someone’s applica-tion is rejected. When visa applications are rejected, this is because the author-ities consider it likely that the person will not return to his/her home country. As a visa grants the holder access to all the Schengen countries, it is very impor-tant that all visa cases are processed thoroughly. The vast majority of visa ap-plications to Norway are granted. In 2009, Norway rejected 8,230 visa ap-plications, which corresponds to about eight per cent of all applications.

Visa to Norway

Nordic citizens, nationals of Schengen countries and some other countries with which Norway has entered into agree-ments are free to enter Norway. Nationals from the rest of the world need a visa.

-sions make decisions in 97 per cent of all visa cases. The UDI deals with the more complicated cases and is also the appeal body for cases that are rejected by the Foreign Service Missions.

China

Thailand

Ukraine

India

Russia

Other countries

11

6741

529

%

Figure 22. Visitor visas granted, by nationality. 2009


Fewer people follow their familyIn 2009, 18,100 persons were granted family immigration permits. That was a decline of 13 per cent compared with the year before.

Fewer applications from EU/EEA countriesThe decline in the number of applications for family immigration partly followed the same pattern as the decline in the number of work permits, which is related to lower demand for labour. In addition, the residence permit system for EEA na-tionals ceased to apply on 1 October 2009. This change means that family members of labour immigrants who are EEA nationals themselves can also settle in Norway without having to apply for a residence permit.

Who was granted family immigration permits?In 2009, the UDI granted 840 family im-migration permits to German nationals, a decline of 49 per cent from 2008. A total of 2,770 family immigration per-mits were granted to Polish nationals, 37 per cent fewer than the year before.

Although the number of family immigra-tion permits issued to Polish nationals declined, the largest number of such permits were nonetheless granted to nationals of Poland, followed by nation-als of Thailand, Somalia, Germany and Iraq. While the figures for Somalia and Thailand remained relatively stable

compared with the year before, the number of permits issued to Iraqi nation-als increased by 17 per cent. 43 per cent of the permits were granted to children under the age of 18, and 45 per cent were granted to adult women. Most fam-ily immigrants from Poland, Lithuania and Germany joined family members working in Norway. From Thailand and the Philippines the largest number of applicants was granted a family immi-gration permit to establish a family with a Norwegian national. Iraqi and Somali nationals were mainly granted permits to be reunited with family members who had come to Norway as asylum seekers.

Rejection of applications for family immigrationEight out of ten applications for family im-migration were granted in 2009. For ap-plicants from Germany, Poland, Lithuania and Thailand, the percentage of permits granted was over 95, while less than 60 per cent of the applications from Eritrea, Somalia and Afghanistan were granted.

In many cases, the application was re-jected because the applicant had failed to enclose the correct documents, sub-stantiate the family relationship or doc-ument his/her own identity. Another

common reason was that the applicant was not deemed to belong to the refer-erence persons immediate family and was therefore not entitled to family im-migration. Some cases were also reject-ed because the person living in Norway did not meet the requirements for finan-cial support and accommodation.

Pro forma marriagesSome applications for family immigra-tion were also rejected because the UDI believed that the marriage had been en-tered into in order for the applicant to be granted a residence permit, a so-called pro forma marriage.

The UDI makes active endeavours to un-cover pro forma marriages. In 2009, we rejected 200 family immigration appli-cations on such grounds.

Many factors are involved in assessing whether a marriage is pro forma. For example, we consider how the parties came into contact with each other, how well they knew each other before they were married, whether the marriage is atypical, and whether the parties have provided concurring information. It can also be important whether the parties can communicate in a common language.


Another aspect is whether the parties or their close family members have a mar-riage history that can give grounds for suspecting a pro forma marriage.

Investigating people’s motives for enter-ing into marriage touches on very pri-vate matters, and it can therefore be difficult to uncover pro forma marriages. Many of them are not uncovered until the residence permit is up for renewal. In cases of doubt, we ask the police to conduct new interviews and to perform residence checks. These investigations are difficult, but the result is that more pro forma marri ages are uncovered.

In other cases, a pro forma marriage is not discovered until the spouse has been granted a permanent residence permit in Norway. In 2008, for example, we discov-ered that a group of Turkish men divorced shortly after they had been married for three years. Many of them also had an-other wife in their home country. Their permanent residence permits in Norway were therefore revoked. Even if the party living in Norway fully believes that the marriage is genuine, it is the applicant’s main intention for entering into the mar-riage that is decisive when we evaluate whether a case is a pro forma marriage.

New Immigration Act The new Immigration Act and Immigra-tion Regulations entered into force on 1 January 2010. The new rules contain stricter requirements regarding family

immigration cases. For example, the re-quirements for subsistence have been increased, and in many cases, it is a re-quirement that the person living in Nor-way has worked or studied here for four years before a family member can come to Norway.

Read more about the new Immigration Act on page 58.

Norwegian or Nordic national

Other permits

Foreign national with settlement permit

Protection

Family immigration permit

Work permit orEEA permit

39

10

33

10

61 %

Figure 23. Family immigration permits by the reference person’s ground for residence. 2009

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Pakist

an

Statele

ss

Russia

Lithuan

ia

PhilippinesIra

q

German

y

Somalia

Thailan

d

Poland

Figure 25. Family immigration permits, ten biggest countries. 2009

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

090807060504030201

Figure 24. Family immigration permits. 2001–2009


The number of foreign students steadily increasingMore and more people wish to study in Norway. In 2009, almost 5,700 persons were granted residence permits to study at a Norwegian educational institution. In addition, 800 EU/EEA nationals registered as students.

Who comes here to study?The students are a diverse group. Most study at a university or a university col-lege, while around 200 people come to attend folk high schools or religious or belief-based schools.

In recent years, nearly half of the foreign students have come from European coun-tries, and half from the rest of the world. Approximately 2,700 permits were grant-ed to students from European countries, and another 800 availed themselves of the new registration system that was in-troduced on 1 October 2009.

The number of students from the rest of the world continued to rise, and China, Russia and the USA topped the statistics. This pattern has remained stable for the past five years.

Students from Nepal and Singapore were new, large groups. While students from Nepal previously came on a quota programme with grants, more and more are now financing their own studies. The

students from Singapore are mainly bi-lateral exchange students.

Home after completed education A study permit does not form the basis for a permanent residence permit. Students are meant to return home after they have completed their studies. Most do, but some stay in Norway for various reasons. Some have acquired qualifications that they can use on the Norwegian labour market, while others marry a Norwegian citizen. In 2009, 850 first-time work permits were granted to persons who had previously held study permits in Norway. Of these, 400 were granted to EEA nationals.

The new Immigration Act that entered into force on 1 January 2010 also makes it possible for new graduates and re-searchers to be granted residence permits for up to six months to look for work after completing their studies in Norway.

Efficient processing of applicationsThe UDI’s goal is to process study applica-tions before the start of the academic

year, and the summer is therefore a hectic time for us. To make case processing as efficient as possible, we cooperate with the educational institutions, foreign service missions and the police. It is im-portant that students receive informa-tion about the application process and documentation requirements. Applica-tions lacking documentation or where there is doubt about whether the condi-tions are met take longer to process.

More researchers and doctoral fellowsIn 2009, 450 persons were granted first-time permits as skilled workers because they were to be employed at a university college or a university. Most were doc-toral fellows. The largest groups were from China, India and Iran, and 70 per cent were men. At the end of 2009, a total of 1,200 persons held valid permits as skilled workers to be able to work at Norwegian universities and university colleges. That was an increase of 300 from the year before. 42 per cent were employed at the Norwegian University of


Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim.

Rejection of applications for study permitsAlthough the vast majority of applica-tions were granted, some did not meet the requirements for studying in Nor-way. The most common reasons for rejec-tion were that the immigration authori-ties considered it unlikely that the appli-cant would return home after completion of his/her studies, or that the applicant had other grounds for applying for the permit than to study. Some also received rejections because they were unable to document how their stay was to be fi-nanced.

Folk high school

Au pair

Post doctoral degree

Other

University or college student

1

3

21

5

70 %

Figure 26. Study permits by type of education. 2009

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

University or college student

Folk high school

Post doctoral degree

Au pair

Other

RussiaUSAChinaGermanyThe Philippines

Figure 27. Study permits by type of education, five biggest countries. 2009

Should the au pair scheme be changed?

The main purpose of the current au pair scheme is cultural exchange. On assignment for the UDI, the research foundation Fafo has evaluated the au pair scheme to find out whether it works as intended. Norwegian families often

want an au pair in order to achieve better control of their everyday lives, but many families also find the cultural exchange to be a very positive experi-ence. The au pairs have various motives, but, for many, the scheme is first and foremost a way to earn money. Although cultural exchange is not the au pairs’ primary goal, they consider living with a Norwegian family to be an important and positive part of the experience.

Fafo’s report presents three different models for what can be done about the au pair scheme in the future. We

can choose to continue with the current system, but make necessary changes. Another possibility is to replace the current scheme with another type of permit. The two suggestions are either a two-year permit for young people with the possibility of an au pair place-ment, work or studies, or an additional scheme for labour immigration in the care and housework field. The Ministry of Justice and the Police is responsible for considering the recommendations in the report and deciding the future of the au pair scheme.


Brazil

USA

Canada

10 = 50 = 100 = 500 = 1,000 = 2,500 =

Who comes to Norway – and why?

Family immigration

Work

Education

Protection

Number of persons:


Lithuania

Germany

Poland

Thailand

Philippines

Somalia

France

EstoniaLatvia

Romania

Australi a

Afghanistan

Stateless

Eritrea

India

IraqChina

Pakistan

Vietnam

Ethiopia

Iran

Turkey

RussiaUnited Kingdom

Belarus

Myanmar

Nepal

South Korea

Sri Lanka

Indonesia

Nigeria

Kenya

Netherlands

BosniaBulgariaSerbia

Ukraine

The map shows which countries most immigrants to Norway came from in 2009, and why they came. Asylum seekers mainly came from areas of the world ridden by war and conflict, and many were reunited with persons from their home country in Nor-way. Ethnic Norwegians, on the other hand, were often reunited with persons from typical holiday countries. The majority of labour immigrants came from EEA coun-tries, while most au pairs came from the Philippines.


New citizensIn 2009, the number of new citizens of Norway was 10,800, roughly the same number as the year before. The most common reason why the new citizens originally came here was family immigration.

Who are the new citizens? Half of the new Norwegian citizens originally came here on family immigra-tion grounds, while a third came as asy-lum seekers. Former Somali nationals were the biggest group; 1,690 persons in all. A total of 1,240 persons were originally from Iraq, while 850 persons were former Afghan nationals. In total, 21 per cent of the new Norwegian citi-zens came from non-European coun-tries. 34 per cent of all the new citizens were children. Women accounted for 58 per cent of the adults.

Requirements for becoming a Norwegian citizen There are several requirements that a person must meet in order to become a Norwegian citizen. The applicant must have documented or clarified his/her identity, live in Norway and intend to continue to live here, have resided here for a total of seven of the past ten years,

meet a good conduct requirement and be released from his/her original citizen-ship. It if is not practically possible or difficult to be released from former citi-zenship, we can, in some cases, make an exception and nonetheless grant Norwe-gian citizenship.

Identity and citizenship Documentation of identity is a challenge in citizenship cases. Identity can be docu-mented by an original, valid passport, but, for some people, this is difficult to obtain. Refugees cannot always contact the authorities in their home country to obtain documents, and some countries lack a central government administra-tion. ID documents other than passports can, however, help to clarify a person’s identity.

The UDI can grant an applicant citizen-ship even if he/she can neither docu-ment nor clarify his/her own identity if

there is no reason to doubt that the infor-mation provided is correct. However, if we do not obtain sufficient information about the applicant’s identity or the ap-plicant provides conflicting information about his/her own identity, we cannot grant Norwegian citizenship.

New requirements for tuition in the Norwegian language After 1 September 2008, all persons be-tween the ages of 18 and 55 applying for Norwegian citizenship must document that they have completed 300 hours of tuition in Norwegian and social studies, or be able to document adequate know-ledge of Norwegian or Sami. This docu-mentation was lacking in many of the applications we received in 2009. We therefore had to obtain more documen-tation in several cases, and many people’s citizenship applications were rejected.

Other

Family

Refugee 34

52

14

%

Figure 29. Citizenship granted by original reason for immigration. 2009

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Sri Lan

ka

Serbia

Philippines

Thailan

d

Pakist

an

Russia

Iran

Afghanist

anIraq

Somalia

Men

Women

Figure 28. Citizenship granted, by gender. Ten biggest countries. 2009


Expulsion

compared with the year before.

What does expulsion entail?Expulsion is the most severe sanction available to the immigration authorities. There are two main reasons why people are expelled from Norway: violation of the General Civil Penal Code and violation of the Immigration Act. A typical violation of the Immigration Act is to live and work in Norway without a permit or to provide incorrect information to the authorities in connection with an application.

You can be expelled for two years, five years or in perpetuity, depending on the seriousness of the offence and how strong your connection to Norway is.

Violation of the Immigration ActIn 2009, 1,560 persons were expelled for violation of the Immigration Act. That is almost twice as many as the year before, when 810 people were expelled. The increase is due to more asylum seek-ers providing incorrect information about their identity or withholding informa-tion that they had applied for asylum in another European country. The increase was also due to the fact that, in 2009, we started to make expulsion decisions at the same time as Dublin decisions, i.e. decisions that the application be proc-essed in another country than Norway.

Over half of those who were expelled for violation of the Immigration Act came from Somalia, Iraq, Eritrea or Afghanistan.

Violation of the General Civil Penal Code A total of 760 persons were expelled for committing criminal offences. The big-gest groups were nationals of Iraq and Nigeria, and almost one in six who were expelled due to criminal offences were EEA nationals.

Extended protection against expulsion EEA nationals have extended protection against expulsion. They can nonetheless

be expelled if they commit criminal offen-ces or if they are deemed to be a serious threat to public safety and order. In 2009, 330 EEA nationals were expelled on these grounds. More than half of them came from Romania or Lithuania.

More people rejected on entryIn 2009, 720 persons were rejected on entry, an increase of 27 per cent from 2008. Nigeria, Russia, Lithuania and Romania are at the top of the rejection statistics. Most rejections take place on entry to Norway due to lack of funds to cover the stay, or lack of a passport, visa or similar. The person is free to enter Norway again once the reason for the rejection is no longer present.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Russia

Poland

Statele

ss

Afghanist

an

Nigeria

Lithuan

ia

Romania

Eritrea

Somalia

Iraq

Violation of the Immigration Act

Violation of the Penal Code

Other grounds

Figure 30. Expulsion by grounds, ten biggest countries. 2009

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

20092008200720062005

Other grounds

Violation of the Penal Code

Violation of the Immigration Act

Figure 31. Expulsion by grounds. 2005–2009


Not everyone wants to talkPeople who have been exploited by others are often reluctant to tell people about their experiences and therefore do not ask the authorities or organisations for help. The reason may be that they fear reprisals against themselves or their family, feel guilt or shame for having ended up in such a situation, lack knowledge about their rights or trust in the authorities, or are afraid of being imprisoned or escorted out of the country if they tell the truth.

Many different casesWe may suspect or receive concrete information about human trafficking in many different cases, for example when a Nige-rian woman applies for asylum after the police have carried out a raid on the prostitution market, when a seasonal worker from the Philippines is lured to Norway with promises of a well-paid job, or when a Romanian boy has to beg or obtain money for the traffickers in other ways.

Human trafficking and human smugglingHuman smuggling and human trafficking are often closely related, but they are not the same thing. The intention behind human smuggling is limited to illegal crossing of borders, while the purpose of human trafficking is to exploit the victims after they have arrived at their destination. Human trafficking can also take place without crossing borders.

Identification of victims and prosecution of traffickersThe UDI has a special responsibility to persuade people who are victims of human trafficking to talk about their situation. We come into direct contact with possible victims and inform them about their rights and where they can get help. Without information from persons who are victims of human traffick-ing, it is difficult to provide them with the necessary assistance and protection from the traffickers. In order for the police and the prosecution authorities to be able to investigate and prose-cute those responsible for such exploitation, the traffickers must be identified.

Human trafficking

Human trafficking involves serious violations of human rights and it is a major international problem, whether it takes the form of forced prostitution, forced labour or organised begging. It is a challenge for the authorities to identify possible victims and provide them with the help they need.

A R B E I D S P E S I A LT E M A

What is human trafficking?

Human trafficking means that a person, through the use of violence, threats, abuse of a vulnerable situation or other improper conduct, exploits someone for the purpose of

Luring someone into being exploited for such purposes is also deemed to be human trafficking.

F O C U S O N


Expertise and relief effortsThe UDI has made great efforts to strengthen the expertise of personnel who conduct asylum interviews, make asylum deci-sions, work at asylum reception centres and process residence cases. Among other things, we have produced a guide for inter-viewers in asylum cases where we suspect or have concrete information about human trafficking. In such cases, the appli-cant is informed about the possibility of being granted a tem-porary residence permit, safe accommodation, legal assistance to report traffickers to the police and counselling through the ROSA project. We also establish contact with bodies that can help and have procedures for reporting such matters to child welfare services and the police.

More people apply for a period of reflectionThe UDI can grant a so-called period of reflection for six months to victims of human trafficking. The goal is for the victims to succeed in breaking contact with the trafficking scene and for the traffickers to be prosecuted. In 2009, 50 persons were granted a permit on these grounds, compared with 40 in 2008. The increase is probably due to the fact that the scheme was better known and that the police have inten-sified their efforts against traffickers.

The UDI can also grant temporary residence permits while a criminal case is being processed. Victims who testify in a crim-inal case concerning human trafficking can apply for a perma-nent residence permit.

Separate return programmeVictims of human trafficking are entitled to be offered protec-tion and fundamental rights in their home country. This is an important factor in our assessment of asylum applications. For those whose asylum applications are rejected or who no longer hold a residence permit in Norway, there is a return programme that aims to facilitate safe and dignified return to the person’s home country.

Cooperation against human trafficking

The UDI is part of the national coordination unit for victims of human trafficking (KOM). We work together with other agencies and organisations to coordinate measures, estab-lish a uniform and good system of assistance for possible victims of human trafficking and strengthen our expertise in the field. The coordination unit has produced information material that is used by case officers and employees at re-ception centres, among others.

The UDI is responsible for ensuring

that possible victims of human trafficking

receive help.


Case processing times are too longMany cases took longer to process than we hoped for in 2009. At the end of the year, the number of unprocessed cases was 38,000, and more than 7,000 applicants had waited more than a year for a decision.

Many complicated casesIn 2009, we processed 85,000 residence cases and 16,000 asylum cases – 11,000 more cases than in 2008. Even though we increased our efficiency and produc-tivity, the number of unprocessed cases nevertheless increased. This is partly due to the great increase in the number of applications received, and partly be-cause we gave priority to complicated cases that demanded more resources at the expense of simpler cases.

Different case processing times in different casesThe number of asylum applications re-ceived in 2009 was the second highest ever, and asylum cases are very time-consuming to process. We focused on conducting asylum interviews as quick-ly as possible, and completed a total of 12,300 interviews. Because case officers spent more time conducting interviews, there was less time to make decisions, and the case processing time for asylum applications processed in 2009 was 220 days. Applications from persons who

New electronic solutionsIn 2009, we gave priority to the work of establishing online self-service solu-tions and a joint electronic archive for the whole immigration administration. These projects will save time and re-sources both for us and for users, and they will help to reduce case process-ing times. Towards the end of the year, we also took on many new case officers in the asylum department. Thus we start 2010 with better capac-ity for processing asylum applications.

More predictable case processing timesWe also want case processing times to be more predictable. In the coming year, we will make efforts to achieve

this by fixing case processing times for work and visa cases. If we are to meet these times, the applicants must enclose all the required information and documentation.

Better organisationThe UDI also wishes to make changes to how the immigration administration is organised. The situation today means that a lot of time is spent send-ing cases back and forth between the UDI, the police and the Foreign Service Missions. That is why we have coop-erated with the police to propose a better organisation of the first-line service that, in our opinion, will speed up case processing and provide bet-ter service for users.

Shorter queues. Better service.

Our top priority for 2010 is to reduce case processing times, and we have already implemented several measures to achieve this.

Our top priority in 2010 is to reduce

case processing times.


stated that they were unaccompanied minor asylum seekers were given prior-ity, and, on average, these cases were processed in about six months.

We received fewer applications for work permits in 2009 than in 2008, but the median case processing time neverthe-less increased from 34 to 47 days. This was due to the many unprocessed cases that were carried over from 2008, which meant that new cases had to wait a long time to be processed. Many of the case officers were also busy with the prepara-tions for the new Immigration Act and developing new ICT solutions.

The case processing time in family im-migration cases was 165 days. We gave priority to applications from children without parents in their home country and persons who applied for family im-migration with labour immigrants in Norway. In the second half of the year, we deployed extra resources to make decisions in cases that were overdue.

Expulsion was a priority area in 2009, and we processed more cases than in previous years. The main reason for this was that many of the decisions were made in connection with rejections of asylum applications, and that more asy-lum seekers came to Norway in 2009 than for several years.

The case processing time in citizenship cases has been long for a long time, and it was 288 days in 2009. Persons who apply for citizenship already live in Nor-way on a valid permit. In a situation where the case processing capacity was under pressure, we had to give less prior-ity to these cases.

Capacity affects the UDI’s statisticsLonger case processing times and many unprocessed cases influence the number of people granted permits in Norway. The number of decisions made in differ-

ent types of cases in 2009 does not neces-sarily reflect the actual trend for the number of applications. When citizen-ship cases are given lower priority, the number of new Norwegian citizens will therefore be lower than the number of applications would indicate. Likewise, increased case processing capacity in 2010 will probably lead to an increase in the number of persons who are grant-ed permits, without the number of appli-cations necessarily rising.

To give an idea of how long it can take to process a case in the UDI, we use the number of days that elapsed be-fore half of the decisions were made (the median figure). In other words, an equal number of cases took either shorter or longer time to process than the stated value.

The median provides a better picture of the case processing times than the average case processing time. A small number of cases that have taken a very long or a very short time to process

can affect average case processing times, but it will not affect the median figure shown here.

At www.udi.no, you can find informa-tion about expected case processing times. The published case processing times are based on how much time we spent processing the majority of applications in the past three months, and they also take into account the composition of the cases and how we prioritise.

How do we measure the case processing times?

Figure 32. Case processing times (median) for work, family, citizenship and asylum cases, respectively. 2005–2009

* The 2009 figures for work permits cover the period from January to September. On 1 October, the work and residence permit scheme for most non-Nordic EEA nationals was replaced by a registration requirement.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

20092008200720062005

Work*

Family immigration

Citizenship

Asylum

Days


Simplified application processIn autumn 2008, it became possible to apply for a visitor visa online at the foreign service missions in Kiev, Moscow and London. In January 2009, the foreign service missions in St Petersburg, Murmansk and Baku also started using the system, and, in October, Hanoi, Manila and Bangkok were connected to the system. Over 60 per cent of those who received a visa decision in 2009 submitted their application at a foreign service mission that accepts online applications. In 2010, even more foreign service missions will start using the new solution, and most people who apply for a visa to Norway will be able do so on the Internet.

Soon, users can also apply for all types of residence permits and citizenship online using the Online Application solution. Residence permits include family immigration, work, au pair

and study permits, and in 2010, the whole immigration admin-istration will start using the solution.

Using Online Application, users can submit their applications where and when they want, regardless of opening hours and without having to queue up. The online solution can be used to

apply for a visa, residence permit or citizenship pay application fees book an appointment to submit documentation to the police or the foreign service mission check that the application has been received.

Easier access to documentsLarge amounts of paper documents in the immigration admin-istration are now being replaced by a joint electronic archive. In autumn 2009, we started a pilot project for the storage of all incoming and outgoing documents. The pilot project in-cluded the archive and the UDI’s Department of Managed Migration, the foreign service missions in Manila and Tehran, and Rogaland and Søndre Buskerud police districts.

Before the end of 2010, the whole of UDI, all the Foreign Serv-ice Missions, the Directorate of Integration and Diversity, the Immi gration Appeals Board and the biggest police districts will be using the electronic archive. Every case officer in the immigration administration will then gain access to the same information at the same time, and they do not have to wait for documents to arrive by post. This will also mean a reduction in case processing times in the long term and better service to our users.

Electronic solutions mean better service

A new and more modern immigration administration is under way. Online self-service solutions and electronic case processing will save time and resources for both users and case officers.

The EFFEKT programme

The immigration administration’s goals are good service, high efficiency and short case processing times. This will be achieved through measures such as EFFEKT, which is the immigration administration’s big development pro-gramme in the ICT area. This development programme is a collaboration between the Directorate of Immigration (UDI), the police, the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE), the Norwegian Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi) and the Foreign Service Missions. The UDI is the programme owner.

U D I S P E S I A LT E M A F O C U S O N


High level of expertise, diversity and growth The UDI continued to grow in 2009. At the end of the year, the number of employees was 1,250, 180 more than the year before. The typical UDI employee is a 38-year-old woman with a Master’s degree.

Desire for diversityThe UDI took on many new employees in 2009, primarily to meet the increase in the number of asylum applications.

When we hire new employees, we make conscious efforts to recruit people with different qualifications and backgrounds. At year end, our youngest employee was 19 years old, and the oldest was 68. Seven-teen per cent were from immigrant back-grounds, and seven out of ten were women.

Our employees have different educa-tional backgrounds, but most have high-er education. Three out of five UDI em-ployees had Master’s degrees or the equivalent, most in social sciences, law and the humanities.

Career and developmentFacilitating professional development, internal mobility and career develop-ment is important to us. The UDI is a big organisation, and it benefits both indi-vidual employees and the organisation as a whole that our employees have ex-perience from several of our specialised fields of expertise.

With almost 200 new employees and 40 new managers, we spent a lot of time on training in 2009. We strengthened the introductory training for new employees and managers. We also started using e-learning to improve and streamline the training of employees, for example in connection with the introduction of the new Immigration Act.

Efforts to reduce sickness absenceIn 2009, the sickness absence in the UDI was 7.6 per cent, i.e. two percentage points above the average sickness ab-sence for state employees. The ‘Happy and pregnant’ project had positive ef-fects. After we hired a midwife to help to facilitate the work situation for preg-nant women, sickness absence in this group fell from 16 to 12 per cent.

To get a better idea of how to reduce sickness absence in the time ahead, we surveyed the most important ‘presence factors’ for employees who have had little sickness absence during the last two years. This work will continue in 2010.

0 100 200 300 400 500

Landinfo*

The Department for Strategy and Coordination

The Director General’s Staff

The Department for E-Government

The Department for Regions, Reception and Return

The Administration, Service and Development Department

The Department of Managed Migration

The Asylum Department

Figure 33. UDI employees, by department

The UDI had 1,119 full-time equivalents and 1,251 employees. Figures at 31 December 2009

* Landinfo is an independent expert body, but is administratively affiliated to the UDI.


Director General

Deputy Director General

Lena Grønland (43) grew up in the former Soviet Union. In 1990, she moved from Jalta in the Ukraine to Norway. Here, she gained a Master’s degree in language and economic studies at the University of Oslo, and later took further education as a teacher and supervisor for interpreters.

After eleven years in the UDI as a secretary, exe-cutive officer, senior executive officer and advisor, she is now head of the unit that recruits and follows up several hundred interpreters and translators. The unit is responsible for finding interpreters for asylum interviews and for the translation of infor-mation material and documents that the case officers in the immigration administration need in order to process incoming applications.

Facilitating professional development,

internal mobility and career development

is important to us.

The Director General’s Staff

Internal Audit

The EFFEKT Secretariat

The Communication Unit

The Department for Regions, Reception and Return

The Administration, Service and Development Department

The Department of Managed Migration

The Asylum Department

The Department for E-Government

The Department for Strategy and Coordination


The UDI’s management

Ida BørresenDirector General

I am proud of our skilled work force, their multitude of excperiences and quali-fications.

Frode ForfangDeputy Director General

The most important thing for the UDI right now? Reducing case processing times and improving service.

Stephan Mo Head of the EFFEKT secretariat

The new electronic solutions are a leap towards better service and a more efficient immigration administration.

Bente E. Engesland Communication Director, the Communication Unit

The media pressure on the UDI is high. We wish to contribute to openness, insight and service. The goal is a debate that is less dominated by myths.

Rebekka Gundhus Department Director, the Department for E-Government

Case processing in the immigration field takes place throughout the country and all over the world, at all times of the day. That is why case officers and the users need robust ICT solutions.


Anne Siri Rustad Department Director, the Department for Regions, Reception and Return

There is often less resistance to the opening of an asylum reception centre than to the closure of the same reception centre.

Astrid Aksnessæther Department Director, the Administration, Service and Development Department

Our internal services are our nervous system − they are invisible when they function as they should, and essential to both staff and users.

Hanne Jendal Department Director, the Asylum Department

Whether an application is granted or rejected has major consequences for the rest of the applicant’s life. Last year, we

Karl Erik Sjøholt Department Director, the Department of Managed Migration

Every day, we help to provide quali-fied foreign workers for the Norwegian business community.

Gry Aalde Department Director, the Department for Strategy and Coordination

The migration situation is complex and constantly changing. It is our job to understand and communicate what is happening in both Norway and Europe.


More asylum seekers resulted in a larger budget In 2009, the UDI had at total budget of NOK 3.5 billion − NOK 1.4 billion more than in 2008. The marked increase in appropriations came as a result of the high number of asylum seekers to the country, and most of it was spent on covering the extra costs of running the asylum reception centres.

Increased spending on reception centresThe UDI has overall responsibility for solving tasks in the area of immigration administration. The scope of the tasks is related to the number of applications we receive, and the number of people living at asylum reception centres at all times.

In 2009, we received many asylum ap-plications, and this led to an increase in the resources required in the asylum and reception field. In total, almost NOK 2.7 billion was spent on running the asylum reception centres and on compensation to the municipalities that host the cen-tres. That is almost twice as much as the year before. At the same time, we in-creased budget provision for costs relat-ing to the use of interpreters at asylum interviews and various support schemes and grants for asylum seekers and reset-tlement refugees.

More money for operationThe UDI’s operating budget was NOK 761 million, NOK 115 million more than in 2008. The increase was the result of increased payroll expenses due to our recruiting more case officers. In total, 64 per cent of the operating expenses were spent on wages.

Good balance in the accountsThe UDI’s accounts are prepared in ac-cordance with the accounting regula-tions for the government administration. This means that all expenses are entered in the accounts the year they are in-curred. The accounts for 2009 show our expenses are under control. All the items are on or below budget.

Payroll expenses: NOK 489,932,000

Goods and services purchased (operating the UDI): NOK 270,802,000 Knowledge development

(R&D measures): Running the reception centres: NOK 2,024,210,000

Political control

The UDI’s activities are financed via the government’s budget, and the political priorities and requirements regarding the tasks we are given are defined by the ministry that is in charge of immigration. In 2009, this was the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion, and in 2010, it is the Ministry of Justice and the Po-lice. It is our responsibility to priori-tise resources and organise our activities so that we achieve our goals without exceeding the ap-propriations. Our tasks and priori-ties can change markedly from one year to the next, and resource re-quirements can change during the course of the year.


Financial support to asylum seekers: NOK 487,903,000

Grants to the host municipalities:

Interpreters/translators: NOK 73,159,000

Return: NOK 23,811,000

Resettlement refugees:

Overview of the accounts (figures in NOK 1,000). 2008–2009

Financial accounts 2008 2009

Operation of the UDI

Payroll expenses 401,742 489,932

Operating expenses 270,802

Running of asylum reception centres 2,512,113

Grants for residents 487,903

Operating expenses for reception centres etc.

1,114,875 2,024,210

Interpretation and translation 54,802 73,159

Knowledge development – migration R&D projects

Grants to host municipalities for reception centres *

Return and repatriation of refugees Projects and individual funding 20,049 23,811

Settlement of resettlement refugees Support schemes 5,973

Travel expenses for resettlement refugees 9,257 9,291

Other expenses 9,803

Total 2,124,042 3,559,915

* In 2009, this item was part of the expenses under the item Running of asylum reception centres.


Prioritisation of resourcesIn 2009, we received many applications for permits, and we also had many other major tasks besides case processing. The amount of cases made great demands on our efficiency and productivity, and we had to prioritise carefully.

Measuring the use of resourcesTo assess whether the UDI makes optimal use of its resources, we cost products, cal-culating the use of resources in relation to different tasks.1 For example, this means that we calculate how much it costs to process different types of applications, administrative costs per place at recep-tion centres, and how much we spend on general tasks such as international work, statistics and user service. The calculations also enable us to monitor how time spent on certain tasks changes over time.

New ICT solutions are expensiveThe amount and composition of the tasks changes from one year to the next, and this affects how we prioritise the resources at our disposal. Among items that do not involve deciding applica-tions, the modernisation of the elec-tronic solutions in the immigration ad-ministration and the work on the imple-mentation of the new Immigration Act were among the most expensive tasks in

1 In the cost accounts, the figures are adjusted for deductions for maternity and sickness benefits, joint services to IMDi and Landinfo etc.

2009. These projects cost NOK 65 and NOK 39 million, respectively, which ac-counted for 14 per cent of our operating budget. The accounts also show a sig-nificant increase in the item User service. In total, we spent NOK 72 million, or ap-proximately 10 per cent of our operating budget, on the Information Service, the Service Centre and other user services. This is an increase of almost NOK 17 mil-lion from 2008.

Asylum decisions are time- consumingExpenses relating to asylum decisions and asylum interviews accounted for a third of the operating budget in 2009. By com-parison, we spent just over a fifth of the operating budget on making five times as many decisions in residence cases.

In other words, asylum decisions are far more expensive than other types of deci-sions. In 2009, it cost an average of NOK 21,000 to process an asylum application, including the costs of asylum interviews. That is about 7 times more than a deci-sion in a family immigration case, 13

times more than a citizenship decision, 22 times more than a visa decision and 32 times more than a decision regarding a work permit for an EEA national.

There are also significant differences be-tween different types of asylum decisions. A Dublin decision takes less time and is less expensive than a decision in a case that is considered on its merits, while de-cisions regarding applications from unac-companied minor asylum seekers are very demanding in terms of time and money.

The differences show how prioritising between different case types can affect overall case processing times. If we make it a priority to process resource-intensive cases, the case processing time for sim-pler cases will be longer.

More efficient in 2009Even though the number of unprocessed cases increased, we made more deci-sions at a lower unit cost in 2009 than in 2008. This was the result of a number of measures to make us more productive and efficient. Clearer procedures, clari-


fications and improved cooperation with external parties are examples of meas-ures that resulted in a major reduction in unit costs for processing applications for family immigration, visas, settlement permits and EEA permits.

Even though the processing time for the work-related applications increased in 2009, our productivity nonetheless im-proved. In 2009, we processed 38 work-related cases in 100 hours, compared with 30 cases the year before. Expulsion cases have the highest unit cost of all the residence cases, because the level of con-trol is so high and because they are de-manding to process.

The unit costs for asylum decisions in-creased somewhat in relation to 2008, however, because there were more com-plicated cases. We nevertheless man-aged to reduce unit costs for asylum in-terviews, and changes in certain proce-dures have also led to increased effi-ciency in making decisions, which will produce results in 2010.

Asylum decisions (Dublin decisions included)

Asylum interviews

Residence decisions 85,000

12,100

15,700

Figure 34. Distribution of costs and decisions in asylum and residence cases. 2009

Number of decisions Distribution of costs (figures in NOK million)

Asylum decisions

Asylum interviews

Residence decisions 157

86

176

In total, we spent NOK 72 million,

approximately 10 per cent of our operating

budget, on user services.

Product costing for decisions in residence and asylum cases. 2006–2009

Residence cases – decisions and appeals

Year Product cost Number Unit cost Change in unit cost

2009 84 941 1 852 - 21%

2008 185 540 537 79 535 2 333 18%

2007 84 537 1 974 0%

1 979

Asylum decisions (cases considered on their merits, asylum interviews not included)

Year Product cost Number Unit cost Change in unit cost

2009 11,152 14,129 5%

2008 105,111,118 7,812 13,455 - 3%

2007 5,384 13,829 - 3%

49,541,503 3,470 14,277


New Immigration Act simplifies and tightens the rules The new Immigration Act and the pertaining Immigration Regulations entered into force on 1 January 2010. This entails a number of important changes, especially in relation to EU/EEA cases, family immigration and asylum cases.

The introduction of the new Immigra-tion Act required extensive preparation. In 2009, the UDI therefore spent a lot of time adapting its computer systems, up-dating guidelines, preparing new infor-mation material and training all our employees in the new regulations. The goal was to achieve a smooth transition and to ensure efficient case processing from the day that the act entered into force.

Simpler labour immigration for EU/EEA nationalsThe new act entails a simpler system for EEA nationals who have received an of-fer of employment in Norway. With the exception of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals applying for a first-time resi-dence permit in Norway, EEA nationals no longer need to apply for residence permits. They only need to register with the police and submit documentation of the employment relationship. If family

members of the labour immigrants are EEA nationals, they can also register with the police and move here. If the family members are not EEA nationals, they have to apply for a so-called resi-dence card.

Those who are covered by the EEA Regu-lations will now be entitled to perma-nent residence in Norway after five years’ residence in the country.

Stricter rules for family immigrationThe new act and regulations contain a more stringent requirement for subsist-ence in family immigration cases. The requirement that the reference person (the person with whom the applicant is applying to be re united or set up a family) must document a future income corre-sponding to salary grade 8 in the pay scale for Norwegian government employ-ees still applies.

In addition, a requirement has been in-troduced that the person living in Nor-way must document that he/she has had sufficient income during the past year. As a rule, the sponsor must not have re-ceived social security benefits during the last year. The requirement for subsist-ence now also applies to spouses and children of Norwegian nationals. The regulations contain a few exceptions from the requirement for previous and future income in certain cases.

More people will be granted refugee status More asylum seekers will now be granted refugee status. Both people who are granted asylum and people who are granted protection from being returned will be given refugee status and thus have the same rights as refugees.


New termsThe new act also entails several changes in terminology that makes the Norwe-gian expressions more in line with inter-national terms. For example, the word asylum is replaced by the word protec-tion to reflect the term used in interna-tional refugee law. The term settlement permit is changed to permanent resi-dence permit. In addition, the term work permit will no longer be used, and all permits are now called residence per-mits.

Read more about the new Immigration Act on our website: www.udi.no/newact

Our goal was to achieve a smooth transition

and to ensure efficient case processing from

the day that the act entered into force.

Using clearer languageIt is very important that our users un-derstand the information we provide and the decisions we send them. In the past year, we have put a lot of ef-fort into improving the content of our texts. Our new language profile, which requires the use of simple and clear language, is inten ded to help us to adapt information to those we wish to reach. This work on language will con-tinue in 2010.

Better oral communicationWe have also worked systematically on how we best can greet, understand and inform users who contact us by phone. We have developed a conver-sation method aimed at making it easier

to understand what information callers need so that we can provide it in a simple and professional manner.

More arenasWe also created more physical and online arenas. There was great inter-est in our four information meetings, and many people came to talk to us about regulations, permits and career opportunities at the UDI’s Open Day.

We also started using Twitter in 2009, and at the end of the year, Director General Ida Børresen had more than 1,100 followers. Feel free to follow us: twitter.com/IdaBorresen and twitter.com/Utlendingdir.

Better dialogue with users

Explaining regulations and communicating legal messages in understand-able terms is a difficult task. In 2009, we worked hard to improve both our oral and written communication with our users.

61T H E D I R E C T O R AT E O F I M M I G R AT I O N – A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 9 61

Table 1. Work permits, by type of permit. 2000–2009

Basis for settlement permit

Renewable permits

Non-renewable permits Change

from the previous

year

Change from the previous year in %

Specialist/skilled worker

Other grounds

Up to 4 years

Up to 2 years Seasonal Other EEA Other

Total number of first-time

permits Renewals Total

2000 515 13 664 21 9 930 2 479 2 234 - 15 856 2 437 18 293 627 4 %

2001 817 23 920 76 11 896 2 743 2 518 1 18 994 2 594 21 588 3 295 18 %

2002 1 730 28 1 070 247 15 714 2 819 2 549 1 24 158 3 247 27 405 5 817 27 %

2003 1 126 16 754 147 17 886 2 473 3 237 11 25 650 3 692 29 342 1 937 7 %

2004 747 10 967 125 4 854 2 128 24 180 - 33 011 6 966 39 977 10 635 36 %

2005 1 223 20 895 119 1 816 1 120 22 711 518 28 422 22 047 50 469 10 492 26 %

2006 2 011 16 996 142 1 909 1 189 34 237 28 40 528 30 297 70 825 20 356 40 %

2007 2 913 93 1 454 170 2 552 948 46 778 5 54 913 42 955 97 868 27 043 38 %

2008 3 384 124 945 203 2 245 586 45 080 4 52 571 48 495 101 066 3 198 3 %

2009 2 577 111 920 262 2 218 337 16 775 2 23 202 32 849 56 051 -45 015 -45 %

The figures may differ from figures stated in reports for previous years. This is due to the fact that some cases are registered in the computer system some time after the permit has been granted and are therefore not included in the statistics for that year.

The figures show the total number of first-time permits and renewals granted by all instances, including the police and the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE).

On 1 October 2009, the residence permit requirement ceased to apply for most EEA nationals. This is the main reason for the decline in the number of granted work permits from 2008 to 2009.

Table no Title PageTable 1 Work permits, by type of permit. 2000–2009 61Table 2 Work permits, by type of permit and citizenship. 2009 62Table 3 Study permits, by type of permit and citizenship. 2009 63Table 4 Family immigration permits, by citizenship. 2001–2009 64Table 5 Family immigration permits, by the sponsor’s grounds for residence and the applicant’s citizenship. 2009 65Table 6 Visitor visas processed by the first instance, by citizenship and outcome. 2009 66Table 7 Visitor visas processed by the first instance, by decision-making instance and outcome. 2009 66Table 8 Settlement permits, by citizenship. 2004–2009 67Table 9 Citizenships granted, by original citizenship. 2007–2009 67Table 10 Rejection decisions, by grounds. 2000–2009 68Table 11 Expulsions, by grounds. 2003–2009 68Table 12 Expulsions, by citizenship. 2003–2009 68Table 13 Protection decisions. 2000–2009 69Table 14 Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, by citizenship. 2000–2009 69Table 15 Asylum decisions in the UDI, by citizenship and outcome. 2009 70Table 16 Asylum applications, by citizenship. 2000–2009 71Table 17 Resettlement refugees, by citizenship, granted permit and arrivals. 2009 72Table 18 Asylum applications received in 43 industrialised countries at third quarter. 2006–2009 72

Explanation of symbols in tables and figures Symbol

No figures can occur .

Zero –

Less than 0.5 of unit 0


Table 2. Work permits, by type of permit and citizenship. 2009

Basis for settlement permit

Renewable permits

Non-renewable permits

Citizenship

Specialist/skilled worker

Other grounds

Up to 4 years

Up to 2 years Seasonal Other EEA Other



Australia 73 3 12 117 14 4 2 - 225 119 344

Austria - - - - - - 67 - 67 61 128

Belarus 15 - 4 - 199 15 - - 233 23 256

Belgium 3 - - - - - 47 - 50 44 94

Bosnia-Herzegovina 29 2 49 - 38 - - - 118 141 259

Brazil 58 4 16 - 48 5 - - 131 58 189

Bulgaria 4 - - - - 3 640 - 647 584 1 231

Canada 83 13 25 61 17 6 - - 205 121 326

China 223 - 23 - 4 22 - - 272 214 486

Croatia 21 5 2 - 75 - - - 103 102 205

Czech Republic 1 - - - - - 138 - 139 201 340

Estonia - - - - 6 - 518 - 524 710 1 234

France 2 - - - - 1 322 - 325 216 541

Germany 17 - - - - - 1 359 - 1 376 1 374 2 750

Greece - - - - - - 33 - 33 43 76

Hungary 3 - 1 - - - 182 - 186 345 531

India 431 4 109 4 97 8 - - 653 753 1 406

Indonesia 30 - 8 - 4 - - - 42 23 65

Iran 73 3 2 - 2 - - - 80 50 130

Iraq 1 1 - - 2 - - 2 6 58 64

Ireland 1 - - - - - 69 - 70 46 116

Italy 1 - - - - - 221 - 222 139 361

Kenya 6 1 64 - 8 5 - - 84 10 94

Latvia 4 - - - 2 - 753 - 759 868 1 627

Lithuania 2 - - - - - 2 504 - 2 506 4 879 7 385

Malaysia 22 - 50 - 1 - - - 73 29 102

Mexico 28 - 2 - 22 1 - - 53 19 72

Moldova 4 - 4 - 59 26 1 - 94 12 106

Nepal 9 - 12 - 48 - - - 69 12 81

Netherlands 3 - - - - - 287 - 290 273 563

New Zealand 22 1 2 23 52 1 2 - 103 33 136

Nigeria 28 7 2 - 1 - - - 38 37 75

Pakistan 55 3 2 - - - - - 60 43 103

Philippines 204 4 13 10 91 50 - - 372 440 812

Poland 13 - - - - - 6 325 - 6 338 15 798 22 136

Portugal - - - - - - 149 - 149 112 261

Romania 11 - 2 - - - 1 684 - 1 697 1 540 3 237

Russia 229 3 18 39 250 62 - - 601 440 1 041

Serbia 78 6 4 1 84 3 - - 176 191 367

Slovakia 1 - - - - - 403 - 404 812 1 216

South Korea 21 1 31 - - 1 - - 54 25 79

Spain - - - - - 1 200 - 201 132 333

Switzerland 1 - - - - 1 53 - 55 35 90

Thailand 18 - 4 - 95 - 1 - 118 17 135

Turkey 32 - 10 - 21 1 - - 64 45 109

Ukraine 118 2 51 2 375 85 - - 633 174 807

United Kingdom 12 - 2 1 - - 791 - 806 529 1 335

USA 220 18 145 - 54 19 - - 456 342 798

Venezuela 24 1 - - - - - - 25 71 96

Vietnam 20 - - - 397 - - - 417 19 436

Other countries 323 29 251 4 152 17 24 - 800 487 1 287

Total 2 577 111 920 262 2 218 337 16 775 2 23 202 32 849 56 051

On 1 October 2009, the residence permit requirement ceased to apply for most EEA nationals.


Table 3. Study permits, by type of permit and citizenship. 2009

Citizenship StudentFolk high school

Post doctoral degree Au pair Trainee

Other work permits for

study purposes EEA



Australia 92 - 2 1 2 - - 97 9 106

Austria - - - 1 1 - 99 101 9 110

Bangladesh 50 - 1 1 - - - 52 24 76

Belarus 22 3 - 3 76 - - 104 45 149

Belgium 1 - - - - - 61 62 3 65

Brazil 41 4 5 15 4 - - 69 26 95

Bulgaria - - - 3 - - 15 18 27 45

Cameroon 32 1 - - - - - 33 33 66

Canada 113 7 3 - 7 - - 130 28 158

China 389 2 24 14 35 - - 464 415 879

Czech Republic - - - - 1 1 120 122 21 143

Ethiopia 89 - - - 1 - - 90 144 234

France - - - - 1 - 356 357 28 385

Germany 6 - - 1 - - 680 687 128 815

Ghana 62 6 1 - - - - 69 96 165

Hungary 1 - - 1 - - 78 80 7 87

India 82 22 6 4 7 - - 121 35 156

Indonesia 35 - - 22 - - - 57 54 111

Iran 67 - 4 - - - - 71 38 109

Italy 1 - - - - - 232 233 30 263

Japan 50 3 11 - 1 - - 65 28 93

Kenya 16 5 - 11 - - - 32 39 71

Latvia - - - - - - 89 89 17 106

Lithuania - - - 1 - - 69 70 28 98

Mexico 38 1 - 4 2 - - 45 13 58

Nepal 132 6 - 3 - - - 141 86 227

Netherlands 1 - - - - 2 124 127 18 145

Nigeria 36 1 - - 1 - - 38 38 76

Pakistan 100 - - 1 1 - - 102 110 212

Peru 11 4 1 35 1 - - 52 29 81

Philippines 38 75 - 1 328 1 - - 1 442 1 064 2 506

Poland 1 - - 1 35 - 181 218 82 300

Romania - - - 9 - - 64 73 38 111

Russia 278 18 4 29 36 1 - 366 292 658

Serbia 47 2 - 7 2 - - 58 60 118

Singapore 102 1 - - - - - 103 6 109

Slovakia - - - - - - 54 54 4 58

South Korea 78 - 1 1 3 - - 83 15 98

Spain - - - - - - 229 229 19 248

Sri Lanka 22 1 - 1 2 - - 26 27 53

Sudan 25 - 3 - - - - 28 18 46

Switzerland 1 - - - - - 46 47 7 54

Tanzania 61 - 1 2 - - - 64 55 119

Thailand 37 1 1 53 1 - - 93 63 156

Turkey 40 - 2 1 5 - - 48 27 75

Uganda 40 1 - 2 1 - - 44 53 97

Ukraine 55 2 - 67 88 14 - 226 184 410

United Kingdom 3 1 - - - - 67 71 13 84

USA 309 19 18 15 8 - - 369 60 429

Vietnam 27 4 - 33 - - - 64 38 102

Other countries 405 18 9 40 24 2 92 590 402 992

Total 3 036 208 97 1 710 347 20 2 656 8 074 4 133 12 207



Table 4. Family immigration permits, by citizenship. 2001–2009

Citizenship 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Afghanistan 382 510 387 318 507 471 362 445 391

Australia 71 61 58 86 74 108 134 101 105

Belarus 30 45 32 52 48 39 41 46 59

Bosnia-Herzegovina 165 169 94 147 124 94 120 120 104

Brazil 130 129 156 191 234 262 317 311 366

Bulgaria 71 73 61 74 63 46 75 98 130

Burundi 7 3 6 21 29 38 39 45 67

Canada 96 97 56 72 95 89 132 130 135

Chile 116 140 101 144 107 105 80 112 87

China 134 228 156 226 217 240 279 284 292

Cuba 61 68 48 78 48 60 47 61 66

Dem. Rep. of Congo 19 21 11 3 41 45 42 51 83

Eritrea 47 46 26 42 34 49 78 142 237

Estonia 60 65 53 67 56 66 90 88 98

Ethiopia 152 226 63 157 172 131 157 188 238

France 164 158 135 131 156 171 198 182 136

Germany 382 426 401 563 558 768 1 456 1 630 835

Ghana 83 91 54 77 71 71 69 83 77

India 159 161 132 162 176 246 496 478 431

Indonesia 29 24 42 49 46 57 72 85 79

Iran 288 268 252 260 205 174 152 172 176

Iraq 1 696 1 737 940 909 933 626 436 654 762

Italy 44 58 47 55 45 66 88 75 69

Kenya 26 52 30 56 66 48 76 73 57

Kosovo . . . . . . . 1 128

Latvia 47 65 58 53 60 80 140 154 182

Lithuania 82 136 106 162 238 382 643 749 655

Macedonia 55 64 37 30 49 46 49 54 67

Mexico 34 29 58 34 38 48 43 63 73

Morocco 196 204 125 126 119 112 144 119 122

Myanmar/Burma 1 8 3 41 80 114 104 103 126

Netherlands 214 188 171 271 358 424 509 501 246

Nigeria 45 36 22 64 51 67 77 73 90

Pakistan 566 545 518 496 461 392 431 438 500

Philippines 366 457 396 437 433 412 618 580 703

Poland 232 289 247 390 748 1 702 3 292 4 423 2 773

Romania 96 97 73 98 111 104 162 361 333

Russia 637 905 797 742 653 595 658 607 620

Serbia* 438 490 283 359 276 258 180 264 181

Slovakia 27 24 26 45 38 21 57 97 59

Somalia 645 1 707 652 689 929 913 1 003 1 179 1 027

Spain 39 60 35 49 53 57 68 52 85

Sri Lanka 236 221 148 183 135 121 133 129 93

Thailand 650 918 780 1 099 1 014 943 1 073 1 214 1 248

Turkey 490 465 445 418 369 279 246 261 362

Ukraine 88 153 129 155 133 148 177 245 247

United Kingdom 394 420 330 453 420 437 446 383 286

USA 437 439 322 423 355 410 453 528 459

Vietnam 325 291 171 334 240 154 203 196 114

Stateless 57 135 94 109 88 131 205 534 539

Other countries 1 333 1 405 1 102 1 550 1 481 1 561 1 763 1 804 1 714

Total 12 142 14 607 10 469 12 750 13 035 13 981 17 913 20 766 18 112

* For the years from 2001 to 2006, nationals of Montenegro are included. Nationals of Kosovo were included until 2008.



Table 5. Family immigration permits, by the sponsor’s grounds for residence and the applicant’s citizenship. 2009

Citizenship

Norwegian or Nordic national

Foreign national with settlement

permit RefugeeWork incl.

EEA Education

Family immigration

permitOther

permitsNot

registered Total

Afghanistan 57 205 119 2 - 7 - 1 391

Australia 64 1 - 36 2 - - 2 105

Belarus 24 2 - 26 2 5 - - 59

Bosnia-Herzegovina 49 19 2 28 - 2 - 4 104

Brazil 256 9 - 30 3 62 2 4 366

Bulgaria 20 5 - 96 2 4 - 3 130

Burundi 11 46 9 - - 1 - - 67

Canada 54 2 2 75 - 2 - - 135

Chile 44 16 - 21 1 5 - - 87

China 120 18 4 116 8 21 - 5 292

Cuba 47 7 - - - 12 - - 66

Dem. Rep. of Congo 3 46 34 - - - - - 83

Eritrea 31 59 141 - - 4 1 1 237

Estonia 23 3 - 60 - 11 - 1 98

Ethiopia 49 34 102 9 36 8 - - 238

France 26 2 - 104 - 4 - - 136

Germany 65 8 1 707 5 38 9 2 835

Ghana 35 7 - 9 19 6 - 1 77

India 71 13 1 337 3 2 1 3 431

Indonesia 30 2 - 39 1 3 - 4 79

Iran 95 24 5 38 7 5 1 1 176

Iraq 171 254 276 27 - 13 7 14 762

Italy 20 - - 46 - 3 - - 69

Kenya 42 - - 2 4 9 - - 57

Kosovo 92 11 1 21 - 1 - 2 128

Latvia 20 1 - 147 1 12 1 - 182

Lithuania 34 3 - 561 3 50 - 4 655

Macedonia 45 11 - 7 - 2 - 2 67

Mexico 47 - - 18 - 6 - 2 73

Morocco 85 21 1 7 - 5 2 1 122

Myanmar/Burma 3 40 77 1 - 1 - 4 126

Netherlands 30 5 - 177 - 17 15 2 246

Nigeria 42 9 - 29 2 3 2 3 90

Pakistan 316 49 5 80 26 11 1 12 500

Philippines 489 22 2 114 3 65 3 5 703

Poland 91 28 - 2 512 1 129 1 11 2 773

Romania 40 4 1 261 1 24 1 1 333

Russia 269 79 45 139 5 72 3 8 620

Serbia 55 33 9 74 3 4 - 3 181

Slovakia 6 3 - 46 1 2 - 1 59

Somalia 212 427 347 - - 34 4 3 1 027

Spain 23 2 3 54 - 2 - 1 85

Sri Lanka 48 16 1 11 5 10 1 1 93

Thailand 896 59 1 9 1 272 3 7 1 248

Turkey 250 52 10 35 1 7 3 4 362

Ukraine 137 13 4 49 1 39 - 4 247

United Kingdom 121 2 - 145 1 9 2 6 286

USA 230 12 - 165 16 19 5 12 459

Vietnam 79 7 - 12 2 14 - - 114

Stateless 53 8 459 11 - 6 - 2 539

Other countries 780 183 80 508 61 83 4 15 1 714

Total 5 900 1 882 1 742 7 001 227 1 126 72 162 18 112



Table 6. Visitor visas processed by the first instance, by citizenship and outcome. 2009

Citizenship Granted Rejected Total

Afghanistan 121 77 198

Albania 33 64 97

Algeria 216 112 328

Angola 314 10 324

Azerbaijan 1 304 125 1 429

Bangladesh 77 71 148

Belarus 272 18 290

Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 162 20 1 182

China 11 238 323 11 561

Colombia 113 9 122

Côte d’Ivoire 274 93 367

Ecuador 127 10 137

Egypt 705 52 757

Eritrea 233 112 345

Ethiopia 110 231 341

Gambia 95 113 208

Ghana 81 84 165

India 5 427 307 5 734

Indonesia 1 047 7 1 054

Iran 1 511 753 2 264

Iraq 182 171 353

Jordan 619 44 663

Kenya 594 55 649

Kosovo 568 285 853

Lebanon 857 39 896

Macedonia 729 62 791

Madagascar 143 4 147

Malawi 341 - 341

Moldova 142 11 153

Morocco 203 113 316

Mozambique 119 1 120

Nigeria 766 427 1 193

Pakistan 1 332 854 2 186

Philippines 2 850 449 3 299

Russia 41 195 341 41 536

Saudi Arabia 434 13 447

Serbia 1 606 105 1 711

South Africa 2 011 11 2 022

Sri Lanka 767 215 982

Sudan 532 43 575

Syria 124 78 202

Taiwan 106 - 106

Tanzania 419 27 446

Thailand 7 472 612 8 084

Turkey 1 040 362 1 402

Uganda 1 585 159 1 744

Ukraine 5 643 126 5 769

Vietnam 1 026 347 1 373

Zimbabwe 581 17 598

Stateless 503 124 627

Other countries 1 425 543 1 968

Total 100 374 8 229 108 603

Table 7. Visitor visas processed by the first instance, by decision-making instance and outcome. 2009

Decision-maker Granted Rejected Total

Abidjan 416 227 643

Abu Dhabi 752 58 810

Abuja 471 330 801

Algiers 200 117 317

Amman 547 36 583

Ankara 942 364 1 306

Antananarivo 142 6 148

Asmara 200 82 282

Baku 1 353 128 1 481

Bangkok 7 412 626 8 038

Beijing 6 501 177 6 678

Beirut 987 33 1 020

Belgrade 1 528 74 1 602

Bucharest 84 2 86

Cairo 647 46 693

Canberra 163 5 168

Caracas 144 21 165

Colombo 604 135 739

Dar es Salaam 400 33 433

Guangzhou gc 1 147 40 1 187

Hanoi 1 011 344 1 355

Harare 531 16 547

Houston gc 309 4 313

Islamabad 888 802 1 690

Jakarta 1 005 7 1 012

Kampala 1 733 203 1 936

Khartoum 571 35 606

Kiev 5 822 121 5 943

Lilongwe 331 - 331

London 2 571 7 2 578

Luanda 329 17 346

Manila 2 598 413 3 011

Maputo 150 1 151

Moscow 21 760 239 21 999

Murmansk gc 14 006 60 14 066

Nairobi 564 51 615

New Delhi 4 322 300 4 622

New York gc 374 - 374

Pretoria 1 897 47 1 944

Pristina 61 121 182

Rabat 197 115 312

Riyadh 630 71 701

San Francisco gc 359 7 366

Sarajevo 1 142 15 1 157

Shanghai gc gk 3 223 94 3 317

Skopje 976 66 1 042

St. Petersburg gc 5 373 52 5 425

Tehran 1 299 767 2 066

Tel Aviv 285 14 299

The Directorate of Immigration

1 171 1 685 2 856

Other 246 15 261

Total 100 374 8 229 108 603

gc – General consulate


Table 8. Settlement permits, by citizenship. 2004–2009

Citizenship 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Afghanistan 754 1 250 1 287 800 995 656

Australia 45 55 39 50 57 46

Belarus 53 42 47 54 36 43

Bosnia-Herzegovina 470 548 253 198 143 117

Brazil 90 118 113 140 160 158

Bulgaria 79 86 65 66 72 55

Burundi 18 63 232 113 196 166

Canada 98 117 87 59 54 50

Chile 183 166 139 120 89 70

China 126 214 196 220 264 236

Colombia 55 51 35 24 42 38

Croatia 222 246 104 72 76 54

Cuba 58 37 55 59 48 37

Dem. Rep. of Congo 18 74 200 124 322 258

Eritrea 59 64 97 85 256 284

Ethiopia 296 242 244 162 224 186

France 76 90 65 42 35 45

Germany 170 229 176 153 140 121

Ghana 51 81 56 38 58 47

India 236 229 175 151 164 172

Indonesia 56 39 117 48 49 42

Iran 772 752 639 474 289 246

Iraq 1 602 3 038 1 558 1 119 1 071 1 151

Kenya 40 36 35 48 45 50

Liberia 3 10 210 522 149 63

Lithuania 66 111 116 91 77 60

Morocco 202 182 124 122 102 114

Myanmar/Burma 14 25 120 219 372 547

Netherlands 97 152 114 80 74 63

Nigeria 23 40 31 35 41 57

Pakistan 843 706 529 401 383 366

Peru 31 40 44 41 43 38

Philippines 368 459 442 388 399 513

Poland 253 407 367 248 195 155

Romania 90 89 81 80 115 96

Russia 792 1 200 1 626 1 583 1 268 885

Rwanda 28 87 83 31 49 73

Serbia* 1 541 1 226 605 528 453 322

Somalia 1 226 2 251 1 925 1 307 1 046 1 172

South Korea 104 79 92 63 99 111

Sri Lanka 361 299 231 183 165 110

Sudan 63 116 80 72 74 46

Syria 55 80 51 52 35 50

Thailand 548 846 826 804 858 836

Tyrkia 426 494 371 415 341 269

Ukraine 135 128 125 151 130 133

United Kingdom 355 516 423 308 253 212

USA 460 661 499 368 362 300

Vietnam 184 252 201 163 210 191

Stateless 69 194 181 78 64 84

Other countries 1 501 1 531 1 388 1 364 1 271 1 024

Total 15 465 20 048 16 899 14 116 13 513 12 218

* For the years from 2004 to 2006, nationals of Montenegro are included. Nationals of Kosovo were

included until 2008.

Table 9. Granted citizenships, by original citizenship. 2007–2009

Original citizenship 2007 2008 2009

Afghanistan 682 885 864

Algeria 75 31 42

Bosnia-Herzegovina 349 211 143

Brazil 73 53 64

Bulgaria 52 42 75

Chile 108 66 61

China 164 80 153

Colombia 45 65 40

Croatia 229 173 79

Cuba 50 38 44

Dem. Rep. of Congo 66 43 81

Denmark 78 103 87

Eritrea 93 67 69

Ethiopia 306 331 206

Gambia 26 32 31

Germany 90 106 94

Ghana 69 63 39

India 211 130 170

Indonesia 30 18 49

Iran 737 495 789

Iraq 2 576 1 042 1 242

Kenya 42 32 31

Kosovo - 3 85

Liberia 5 5 39

Libya 10 10 28

Macedonia 12 12 31

Mexico 26 17 29

Morocco 163 152 120

Myanmar 4 4 34

Netherlands 21 37 39

Pakistan 537 763 460

Philippines 406 218 425

Poland 24 60 63

Romania 53 61 33

Russia 416 493 601

Rwanda 38 51 41

Serbia 1 071 228 422

Sierra Leone 33 28 32

Somalia 2 193 1 267 1 687

Sri Lanka 357 246 266

Sudan 64 41 41

Sweden 101 121 80

Syria 71 50 30

Thailand 426 242 455

Turkey 437 208 139

Ukraine 103 90 71

United Kingdom 50 32 41

USA 45 34 27

Vietnam 173 231 147

Stateless 441 171 130

Other countries 1 000 856 797

Total 14 431 9 837 10 846


Table 10. Rejection decisions, by grounds. 2000–2009

Grounds for rejection 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Lacking passport/visa 785 345 304 318 319 217 152 199 178 176

Previously expelled 44 52 52 36 50 30 24 51 38 48

Lacking permit 442 722 845 758 372 174 229 154 104 117

Lacking funds 362 433 580 538 257 138 141 140 111 216

Previously convicted 285 244 204 108 70 41 34 30 9 21

Registered in SIS* . . . 41 28 28 31 27 11 11

Other grounds 24 42 24 50 53 79 78 27 112 128

Total 1 942 1 838 2 009 1 849 1 149 707 689 628 563 717

* Introduced when Norway joined the Schengen Agreement. SIS (Schengen Information System) is a register that includes a list of persons who are unwelcome in different

Schengen countries. This applies to persons who have been expelled due to criminal offences, among other things.

Table 11. Expulsions, by grounds. 2003–2009

Grounds for expulsion 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Violation of the Immigration Act 570 758 683 791 683 805 1 559

Violation of the Penal Code 566 490 566 555 699 779 759

Other grounds 5 12 25 33 16 50 333

Total 1 141 1 260 1 274 1 379 1 398 1 634 2 651

Table 12. Expulsions, by citizenship. 2003–2009

Citizenship 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Afghanistan 4 15 18 36 46 40 94

Albania 36 34 54 43 26 32 36

Algeria 28 34 55 50 30 22 59

Chile 38 49 24 28 37 36 34

Eritrea 5 3 4 13 39 45 214

Ethiopia 3 7 15 14 14 17 44

Gambia 3 6 8 8 5 11 27

Ghana 5 5 11 6 6 12 32

Iran 8 23 30 45 42 28 41

Iraq 14 25 50 121 139 149 334

Libya 7 15 29 17 17 29 31

Lithuania 101 32 29 63 63 87 128

Morocco 29 18 29 34 26 17 41

Nepal 2 3 4 26 25 25 24

Nigeria 11 29 53 35 39 76 123

Pakistan 34 28 29 24 19 22 32

Poland 146 51 51 62 73 87 78

Romania 26 23 33 55 46 82 157

Russia 62 97 81 74 61 81 61

Serbia* 54 39 85 65 68 67 45

Somalia 37 105 59 54 49 50 271

Sri Lanka 30 17 13 19 14 8 25

Turkey 39 41 41 36 55 50 45

Vietnam 12 18 19 13 11 41 46

Stateless 5 30 22 27 27 46 83

Other countries 402 513 428 411 421 474 546

Total 1 141 1 260 1 274 1 379 1 398 1 634 2 651



Table 13. Protection decisions. 2000–2009

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

I ASYLUM SEEKERS

First instance Asylum 97 292 332 585 457 567 461 1 013 1 077 1 753

Residence on humanitarian grounds 2 856 4 036 2 958 2 972 3 023 1 913 1 225 1 921 1 975 2 755

Limited residence (Iraq) 2 019 40 - - - - - - - -

Rejection* 4 899 8 976 12 829 11 834 8 346 4 270 2 025 2 944 5 963 10 251

Appeal body Asylum 4 4 10 21 75 62 60 38 32 44

Residence on humanitarian grounds 343 265 326 219 613 513 464 1 523 630 392

Rejection 4 294 4 145 7 859 9 429 10 733 6 936 5 745 4 374 3 884 9 385

II RESETTLEMENT REFUGEES 1 481 1 269 1 355 1 149 758 942 992 1 350 910 1 112

III TOTAL GRANTED PROTECTION (I+II)

Asylum 1 582 1 565 1 697 1 755 1 290 1 571 1 513 2 401 2 019 2 854

Residence on humanitarian grounds 3 199 4 301 3 284 3 191 3 636 2 426 1 689 3 444 2 605 2 755

Limited residence (Iraq) 2 019 40 - - - - - - - -

TOTAL 6 800 5 906 4 981 4 946 4 926 3 997 3 202 5 845 4 624 6 056

* For the years 2000–2002, cases that were not considered on their merits were not included under rejections.

Decision by appeal body (UNE): The overview from UNE shows the number of ordinary appeals processed from the UDI, Dublin cases and reversal requests. Sources: UDI and UNE.

Table 14. Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, by citizenship. 2000–2009

Citizenship 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Afghanistan 36 41 144 306 141 46 60 86 579 1719

Algeria 7 9 26 11 9 1 1 - 5 23

Angola 1 1 3 28 7 5 4 2 5 5

Dem. Rep. of Congo 1 - 1 3 1 3 5 3 1 5

Eritrea 9 25 37 24 10 7 14 37 68 144

Ethiopia 22 44 59 57 14 9 5 21 21 50

Gambia - 1 - - - - 1 3 1 8

Guinea - 2 5 10 2 1 - 1 - 6

Iran 9 4 10 11 8 9 9 8 28 15

Iraq 80 87 190 108 30 46 92 124 364 84

Morocco - 1 2 - - 3 4 - 2 10

Nigeria 4 1 12 14 6 4 2 2 11 14

Russia 20 37 21 26 17 18 28 13 33 27

Somalia 114 99 133 117 80 74 61 29 117 246

Sri Lanka 58 60 39 20 15 16 16 34 59 37

Sudan 3 5 9 4 1 3 2 2 2 8

Syria - - 2 2 2 3 1 - 1 13

Tajikistan - 1 2 5 2 1 - 1 1 7

Uzbekistan - - 7 1 4 - 3 1 3 6

Stateless - 12 12 18 4 11 3 3 9 18

Other countries 192 131 180 151 71 62 38 33 64 55

Total 556 561 894 916 424 322 349 403 1 374 2 500

Includes all persons claiming to be unaccompanied minor asylum seekers on application.


Table 15. Asylum decisions in the UDI, by citizenship and outcome. 2009

Considered on its merits in NorwayNot considered on its merits

in Norway

Citizenship AsylumOther

protection

Residence on humanitarian

grounds

The 15-month

rule

Unaccom-panied

minor limited Rejection

The Dublin II Regulation

Rejection on other grounds*

With-drawn/

dropped Total

Afghanistan 138 624 215 1 1 996 814 2 46 2 837

Albania - - - - - 23 9 1 3 36

Algeria - - 2 - - 57 52 - 35 146

Armenia - - - - - 8 19 1 1 29

Azerbaijan - 1 - - - 40 6 - 6 53

Burundi 2 - 2 - - 25 5 - 6 40

Cameroon 1 - 1 - - 20 10 - 4 36

China 28 14 - - 1 5 4 1 2 55

Côte d’Ivoire - - 2 - - 6 3 - 8 19

Dem. Rep. of Congo 13 - 6 - 1 20 21 - 4 65

Egypt - - 1 - - 5 10 - 3 19

Eritrea 604 398 378 - - 87 641 10 56 2 174

Ethiopia 180 1 31 - 5 201 74 4 19 515

Gambia 1 - - - 1 29 11 - 4 46

Georgia - - - - - 14 15 - 3 32

Ghana 1 - - - - 12 28 - 5 46

Guinea 2 - 1 - - 30 11 1 5 50

Hungary - - - - - 29 - - - 29

India - - - - - 37 3 - 17 57

Iran 118 30 20 - - 331 99 7 31 636

Iraq 145 8 194 1 19 1 545 335 14 188 2 449

Jordan - - - - - 11 4 - 6 21

Kazakhstan - - - - - 8 8 - 5 21

Kosovo - - 1 - - 170 60 - 34 265

Lebanon 1 - 3 - - 11 12 - 7 34

Liberia 1 - - - - 13 11 - 2 27

Libya - - 1 - - 33 23 - 23 80

Macedonia - - - - - 5 17 - 2 24

Mauritania - - - - - 15 2 2 10 29

Morocco - - - - - 21 16 - 13 50

Myanmar/Burma 7 11 - - - 4 4 - - 26

Nepal - - - - - 218 9 - 4 231

Nigeria 1 - 5 - 3 367 140 7 68 591

Pakistan - - 1 - - 48 19 1 16 85

Russia 5 4 43 - - 466 200 7 19 744

Senegal 1 - - - - 11 7 - 3 22

Serbia 1 - 4 - - 49 50 - 19 123

Sierra Leone - - - - - 8 9 - 3 20

Somalia 296 249 101 - - 64 768 24 42 1 544

Sri Lanka 3 38 1 - - 265 21 - 6 334

Sudan 52 - 1 - - 12 63 3 11 142

Syria 5 - 1 - - 71 61 - 14 152

Tunisia - - - - - 9 12 - 4 25

Turkey - - 2 - - 28 17 - 16 63

Uganda - - - - - 12 4 - 2 18

Ukraine - - - - - 7 16 - 3 26

Uzbekistan 1 - - - - 88 11 - 5 105

Vietnam - - - - - 13 1 - 9 23

Yemen 7 7 13 - - 71 12 - 2 112

Stateless 129 246 53 - - 386 164 2 89 1 069

Other countries 10 1 5 - 2 192 54 3 44 311

Total 1 753 1 632 1 088 2 33 6 196 3 965 90 927 15 686

Persons who have applied from abroad and settlement refugees are not included.

* Has been granted residence in another safe country.


Table 16. Asylum applications, by citizenship. 2000–2009

Citizenship 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Afghanistan 326 603 786 2 032 1 059 466 224 234 1 363 3 871

Albania 88 210 274 239 113 79 43 31 53 29

Algeria 72 346 468 180 104 45 37 27 100 161

Armenia 65 175 163 41 46 7 25 6 15 30

Azerbaijan 35 100 - 142 129 84 40 23 40 60

Cameroon 23 18 86 73 48 37 18 17 39 34

China 12 19 87 117 67 49 51 40 81 71

Côte d’Ivoire - - 7 23 11 8 14 10 22 29

Dem. Rep. of Congo 8 3 15 75 49 71 83 54 107 107

Egypt - 16 10 9 9 13 7 10 14 29

Eritrea 51 132 269 198 110 177 316 789 1 799 2 667

Ethiopia 96 173 325 287 148 100 143 241 354 706

Gambia - 2 5 1 4 5 4 17 37 69

Georgia 70 205 284 177 82 15 11 2 19 47

Ghana - 2 5 10 6 7 9 23 73 54

Guinea - 5 16 75 30 4 18 16 36 75

Hungary - - 41 9 9 4 5 3 2 29

India - 17 31 15 16 8 32 83 74 36

Iran 327 412 450 608 393 279 218 222 720 574

Iraq 766 1 056 1 624 938 413 671 1 002 1 227 3 137 1 214

Jordan - 4 20 10 8 5 8 9 22 29

Kazakhstan 36 112 137 49 24 22 5 4 8 29

Kosovo . . . . . . . . 312 291

Kyrgyzstan 15 67 152 44 26 24 10 12 9 23

Lebanon 22 34 67 68 33 25 61 58 54 43

Liberia 4 7 13 49 68 41 24 13 27 35

Libya 7 62 123 283 134 23 13 49 81 84

Macedonia 15 190 301 241 66 25 23 10 23 25

Mauritania - - 5 12 6 5 7 6 26 45

Morocco - 19 16 12 22 19 23 16 44 72

Myanmar/Burma - 7 15 18 14 19 8 20 20 31

Nepal 26 97 64 45 91 104 60 46 144 112

Nigeria 14 27 139 235 205 94 54 108 436 582

Pakistan 220 186 216 92 48 33 26 43 38 139

Russia 471 1 318 1 719 1 893 938 545 548 863 1 078 867

Senegal - - 6 5 2 1 4 3 19 31

Serbia* 4 188 928 2 460 2 180 860 468 369 585 363 115

Somalia 910 1 080 1 534 1 601 957 667 632 187 1 293 1 901

Sri Lanka 165 164 87 64 58 58 106 238 342 212

Sudan 31 47 94 65 33 45 36 37 118 251

Syria 60 57 80 96 69 79 49 49 115 278

Tajikistan - 24 42 24 15 6 1 1 3 26

Tunisia - 6 9 6 7 6 1 4 10 31

Turkey 164 204 257 235 149 111 69 49 82 82

Uganda - 11 7 8 7 11 19 15 25 32

Ukraine 131 1 027 772 92 44 20 12 6 18 27

Uzbekistan 4 105 206 92 51 42 52 38 148 145

Yemen - 2 12 22 24 14 11 23 82 113

Zimbabwe - - 3 5 4 13 10 9 17 36

Stateless 120 194 391 366 298 209 237 515 940 1 280

Other countries 2 301 5 309 3 587 2 452 843 539 542 437 449 367

Total 10 843 14 782 17 480 15 613 7 950 5 402 5 320 6 528 14 431 17 226



Table 17. Resettlement refugees, by citizenship, granted permit and arrivals. 2009

Citizenship Granted permit Arrivals

Afghanistan 192 175

Bhutan 154 300

Cambodia - 7

China 1 6

Dem. Rep. of Congo 37 37

Eritrea 190 121

Ethiopia 20 80

India 1 1

Iran 2 2

Iraq 58 65

Jordan 6 6

Mongolia 2 2

Myanmar/Burma 154 326

Pakistan 1 1

Rwanda 5 5

Somalia 57 9

Sri Lanka - 9

Sudan 8 8

Thailand - 2

Vietnam 2 2

Stateless 222 225

Total 1 112 1 389

Table 18. Asylum applications received in 43 industrialised countries at third quarter. 2006–2009

Recipient country

Third quarter

2006

Third quarter

2007

Third quarter

2008

Third quarter

2009

Australia 2 652 2 972 3 449 4 369

Austria 9 692 8 652 8 898 11 589

Belgium 8 214 8 095 8 876 11 444

Bulgaria 407 672 590 593

Canada 16 683 18 962 27 117 26 371

Cyprus 3 046 4 681 2 994 2 297

Czech Republic 2 421 1 317 1 280 991

Denmark 1 361 1 669 1 569 2 624

Finland 1 745 1 046 2 189 4 392

France 23 119 20 649 24 690 30 285

Germany 15 506 13 393 16 142 19 575

Greece 5 413 19 961 15 028 11 370

Hungary 1 611 1 975 2 020 3 656

Ireland 3 138 2 946 2 885 2 151

Japan 782 570 1 097 1 119

Malta 962 802 1 995 1 702

Netherlands 11 972 4 878 9 769 10 625

Norway 3 908 4 338 10 071 13 404

Poland 3 026 2 902 5 036 8 100

Slovakia 1 918 2 248 660 605

Slovenia 406 323 160 136

Spain 3 698 5 622 3 351 2 314

Sweden 15 493 27 060 18 250 17 002

Switzerland 7 479 7 642 10 351 11 045

United Kingdom 21 015 19 755 22 530 23 940

USA 38 874 37 762 37 897 36 585

Other countries 1 260 8 196 18 208 21 340

Total 205 810 229 088 257 102 279 624

Source: UNHCR

For 2006, the total figure is based on reporting from 36 industrialised countries.

The Directorate of ImmigrationP.O. Box 8108 Dep.NO-0032 OSLO

Visiting address:Hausmanns gate 21NO-0182 Oslo

Phone: (+47) 23 35 15 00Fax: (+47) 23 35 15 [email protected] / www.udi.no

Desig

n an

d p

rod

uctio

n: 07 G

rup

pen

AS

. Prin

t-run

750.

The Inland Region OfficeP.O. Box 1253, NO-2806 Gjøvik

Visiting address: Storgata 10, NO-2815 Gjøvik

Phone: (+47) 61 14 65 00Fax: (+47) 61 17 08 95 (+47) 61 17 57 14

Counties: Buskerud, Hedmark, Oppland, Østfold

The Central Region OfficeP.O. Box 2438 SuppenNO-7005 Trondheim

Visiting address: Peter Egges plass 2 NO-7005 Trondheim

Phone: (+47) 73 89 24 00Fax: (+47) 73 89 24 01

Counties: Møre og Romsdal, Nord-Trøndelag, Sør-Trøndelag

The Southern Region OfficeP.O. Box 647NO-4666 Kristiansand

Visiting address: Tordenskjolds gate 9 Slottsquartalet NO-4612 Kristiansand

Phone: (+47) 38 10 60 60Fax: (+47) 38 02 04 80

Counties: Aust-Agder, Telemark, Vest-Agder, Vestfold

The Western Region OfficeP.O. Box 4048 Dreggen NO-5835 Bergen

Visiting address: Bugården 8, NO-5003 Bergen

Phone: (+47) 55 30 09 99Fax: (+47) 55 30 09 88

Counties: Hordaland, Rogaland, Sogn og Fjordane

The Northern Region OfficeP.O. Box 683, NO-8508 Narvik

Visiting address: Sleggesvingen 16, NO-8514 Narvik

Phone: (+47) 76 96 58 10Fax: (+47) 76 96 58 39

Counties: Finnmark, Nordland, Troms

The Oslo and Eastern Region OfficeP.O. Box 8108 Dep. NO-0032 OSLO

Visiting address: Hausmanns gate 21, NO-0182 Oslo.

Phone: (+47) 23 35 15 00Fax: (+47) 23 36 19 50

Counties: Akershus, Oslo

annual report 2009 · municipalities, succeeded in establishing enough places in reception centres...

Documents